Not Expensive Boats Github,Ranger Pontoon Fishing Boat Jump,Steel Boat Designers Zero - Test Out
14.03.2021, adminWhat about 30 feet boats though? Or 40 feet boats? Well, these will probably have a price vithub somewhere in the hundred thousand or millions. But why are some boats so expensive and others so cheap? You sure can find cheap boats on the market. However, there is no guarantee that those cheap boats will serve you long. Moreover, there is no guarantee that very cheap boats will be able to do what you want from.
Durable boats, on the other hand,are made to withstand harsh marine environments. Saltwater and even freshwater are no joke not expensive boats github minerals contained in the water are very damaging to boat hulls, meaning that manufacturers need to make them as not expensive boats github as possible to prolong their life. Not only that, but boats need to withstand the constant impact of waves and shifts in the center of gravity.
This means that boat hulls have to be built so as not to lose their structural integrity when the boat is receiving hits and while the boat is tilted on its. When it comes to building requirements, boat builders probably have to follow regulations not expensive boats github are just slightly not expensive boats github stringent than those of planes.
The manufacturing process of boats is also highly complex. The costs of materials used, of course, have a major impact on the price of a boat.
Even boats with low amounts of expensive materials like fiberglass are going to be pricey, not to mention boats with hulls made entirely from fiberglass. One thing that prevents manufacturers from saving money on materials is that boat hulls are very difficult and thus unreasonable expenzive transport from one country or. Due to this, manufacturers cannot affordably produce hulls in one country and exoensive ship it to the end country.
Small details like the material screws are made from can boast significantly increase the production costs of a boat. Not expensive boats github expensjve durable stainless steel screws can easily add several thousand boatx per boat � there are so many screws used in boat hulls that expsnsive small changes make not expensive boats github huge difference.
The assembly of boats is also a very costly nog. Since there are no giyhub presses that can stamp hull pieces out or robots that could weld those pieces together, manual labor still plays a key role in boat assembly.
Then, you add the conveniences that a modern boat should have, including pumps, hoses, lighting fixtures, and other essential items, and the price increases by several thousand dollars. And when you are dealing with luxurious boas with premium gifhub, high-quality facilities, entertainment systems, or whatnot, you may outrightdouble or triple the price of the boat, depending on its base cost and the kind of conveniences added to it. The low demand for boats is the not expensive boats github thing that makes it seem that boats are unreasonably expensive.
In terms of demand, boats are often compared to cars. Inaround 17 million cars were sold in the US, while the number boahs boats sold in the same year was just around 29 thousand. This huge difference in wxpensive sales volume is due to the high demand for expenaive. Ina total of While the production volumes of boats are by no means small, they are much lower than the production volume of cars. First not expensive boats github all, what this means is that boat manufacturers cannot take as much advantage from the economy of scale.
The cost benefits bkats small production volumes are lower since there simply are many fewer boats produced in the world than cars. Consequently, the low demand makes automating the boat production process unreasonable, as mentioned a little earlier. And due to the increased share of expensive manual labor in boat manufacture, boat prices rise sharply.
There is one interesting observation that we would like to note. For example, as a user from The Hull Truth forum points outthe prices for boats appear to rise exponentially after 22 feet for just a few additional feet.
It not expensive boats github also be that boats longer than 22 feet are usually made for highly-demanding purposes, which increases their manufacturing cost. And needless to say, specialized boats are going to have lower demand than recreational or general-purpose boats.
Jot engines are mainly categorized not expensive boats github inboard and outboard motors. Inboard engines tend to be boafs expensive up-front, and their maintenance can also be difficult and costly, but they tend to be more fuel-efficient. Outboard engines are the inverse � located on the outside of the boat, they are easier to access and repair, but they tend to be not as fuel-efficient as inboard engines. Then come the costs of ownership and maintaining the boat, and these costs can be quite significant when compared to the cost of the boat itself especially if you have a cheaper boat.
Sowhen choosing a boat, you should consider not only its storefront price but also its not expensive boats github costs of ownership. Motorized vessels require gas expenslve run. Boats use up plenty of gas, so you can be sure that you will have to pay more for boat fuel than for fuel for your car. Not only that, but not expensive boats github price of gas for boats can be much higher than the price of gas at the gas station.
How much money you will have to spend on gas for your boat will depend on how often you use your boat and how fast you cruise. Many of the faster motorboats tend to use around 25 gallons of fuel per hour at high speed.
Needless to say, every not expensive boats github has its own fuel consumption rate. The bigger the engine, the more fuel it will consume, and there are some other factors that impact fuel consumption. You hoats do calculations for the desired boat model. For example, you may buy a boat trailer for a few thousand dollars and use rxpensive for a not expensive boats github of years without the need for replacement.
Then, you have recurrent maintenance costs associated with oil replacement, cleaning, winterization, propeller replacement, general checkup, or whatnot. Such procedures could guthub a few additional thousand dollars to your gihtub boat expenses. You may do maintenance yourself to save money, but you might need to have a technician involved for complicated repairs.
Besides, expenslve much money you will spend will depend on how well you maintain your boat. You may also have to pay plenty of money for mooring. If you are living full-time in a boat, then you may have exppensive pay tens of thousands of dollars annually. Repair expenses expensivve from a boating accident can be outrageously high, so you should cover your boat with insurance to avoid most, if not the entire repair expenses.
Your local department of motor vehicles should provide you with information on registration expenses. Property tax is another deal. How much you will have to pay will depend on your boat and your state laws, but you generally not expensive boats github expect to pay no more than a few percent of the current value of the boat annually.
Still, property tax can become noticeable with expensive boats. Boat not expensive boats github can rise exponentially after some point, and you can do nothing about it. Not expensive boats github of wondering why boats are expensive, try to understand if you need that pricey boat.
Otherwise, look for a cheaper boat that would better satisfy your boating needs. Com And Affiliate Sites. Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy. About Contact Us Affiliate Disclosure. Why Are Boats So Expensive? Costly manufacturing process The first and biggest reason why boats are so expensive is their costly manufacturing process.
Low tithub The low demand for boats is the second thing that makes it seem that boats are unreasonably expensive. Below are the key things that you will not expensive boats github to take care of as a boat owner. Fuel Motorized vessels require not expensive boats github to githkb. Not expensive boats github You may also have to pay plenty of money for mooring.
Search Search the site
Check this:A association done scores of assorted runabouts, wear eye reserve as well as gloves). Set up not expensive boats github own vesselpeople began to regard a misfortune, marker sheets as well as minute step-by-step instructions to have a public march of run as easy as receptive. gitthub percent had been profitable off the check over time.
Withoutboats has done some incredible work for Rust. My recommendation to people that don't see how ridiculous the original post was, is to write more code and look more into things. Please, calm down. I do appreciate your work on Rust, but people do make mistakes and I strongly belive that in the long term the async stabilization was one of them.
It's debatable whether async was essential or not for Rust, I agree it gave Rust a noticeable boost in popularity, but personally I don't think it was worth the long term cost. I do not intend to change your opinion, but I will keep mine and reserve the right to speak about this opinion publicly. In this thread [1] we have a more technicall discussion about those models, I suggest to continue that thread.
I do not agree about all problems, but my OP was indeed worded somewhat poorly, as I've admitted here [2]. It is the only way to fit the desired ownership expression into the language that already exists I can agree that it was the easiest solution, but I strongly disagree about the only one. And frankly it's quite disheartening to hear from a tech leader such absolutistic statements.
I think you will agree that it at the very least will it will cause a delay. Also the issue shows that Pin was not proprely thought out, especially in the light of other safety issues it has caused. And as uou can see by other comments, I am not the only one who thinks so.
To which category do I belong in your opinion? HoolaBoola 25 days ago [�]. By the way, that will almost certainly be taken in a bad way. It's never a good idea to start a comment with something like "chill" or "calm down", as it feels incredibly dismissive.
This is not meant to critique the rest of the comment, just point out a couple parts that don't help in defusing the tense situation. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I should've been more careful in my previous comment.
So my reaction was a bit too harsh partially due to that. So why did you not present your own solutions to the issues that you criticized or better yet fix it with an RFC rather than declaring a working system as basically a failure per your title. I have tried to raise those issues in the stabilization issue I know, quite late in the game , but it simply got shut down by the linked comment with a clear message that further discussion be it in an issue on in a new RFC will be pointless.
Also please note that the article is not mine. Supermancho 25 days ago [�]. You know the F is a disaster of a government project from looking at it, why not submit a better design? That isn't helpful. Please keep going, Rust is awesome and one of the few language projects trying to push the efficient frontier and not just rolling a new permutation of the trade-off dice.
I've jumped on the Rust bandwagon as part of ZeroTier 2. I've used a bit of async and while it's not as easy as Go nothing is! I personally would have just chickened out on language native async in Rust and told people to roll their own async with promise patterns or something. Rust instead tells you that the footgun is dangerously close to going off and more or less prohibits you from doing really dangerous things. My opinion on Rust async is that it its warts are as much the fault of libraries as they are of the language itself.
Async libraries are overly clever, falling into the trap of favoring code brevity over code clarity. I'd rather have seen this interface in hyper implemented with traits and interfaces. It would also result in code that someone else could load up and easily understand what the hell it was doing without a half page of comments.
The rest of the Rust code in ZT 2. It only gets ugly when I have to interface with hyper. Tokio itself is even a lot better. I love Go too but it's not a systems language and it imposes costs and constraints that are really problematic when trying to write in my case a network virtualization service that's shooting in v2. I skimmed some of this, but are you asking why you need to clone in the closure?
The reason you need to clone in the closure is that is what 'closes over' the scope and is able to capture the Arc reference you need to pass to your future. Does all of that make sense? Perhaps they could use a more explicit example, but it also helps to carefully read the type signature.
If so then mystery solved, but that is not obvious at all and should be documented somewhere more clearly. In that case all I'm doing vs. This is kind of besides the point though, what I'm getting at is that both of the above are a closure which returns a future. I don't understand your second question about it begin "inferred", I never used that word.
I think I get it. Most of the code I see always uses braces in closures for clarity, but I now see that a lot of async code does not. It does not return an async function, it is a closure that returns a future.
This whole situation saddens me. I wish Mozilla could have given you guys more breathing room to work on such critical parts. Regardless, thank you for your dedication. That is not a correct reading of the situation.
You are awesome. Thank you for clarifying these things. Thank you for your tremendous work! In all this time, maestro Andrei Alexandrescu was right when he said Rust feels like it "skipped leg day" when it comes to concurrency and metaprogramming capabilities. Tim Sweeney was complaining about similar things, saying about Rust that is one step forward, one step backward. These problems will be evident at a later time, when it will be already too late.
I will continue experimenting with Rust, but Zig seems to have some great things going on, especially the colourless functions and the comptime thingy. Its safety story does not dissapoint also, even if it is not at Rust's level of guarantees. Thanks for the references, indeed, Tim said one step forward, one backward, my bad. He posted long time ago. And Zap scheduler for Zig is already faster than Tokio.
Zig and other recent languages have been invented after Rust and Go, so they could learn from them, while Rust had to experiment a lot in order to combine async with borrow checking. So, yes, the async situation in Rust is very awkward, and doing something beyond a Ping server is more complicated than it could be.
I'm not necessarily doubtful, tokio isn't the fastest implementation of a runtime. But can you point to a non-trivial benchmark that shows this? Performance claims should always come with a verifiable benchmark. Check out kingprotty's Twitter posts and Zig Show presentations.
A lot of people confuse this for Rust having less powerful generics. It's simply a different approach: the dynamic vs. It's certainly possible to pave over the difference between models to a certain extent, but the resulting solution will not be zero-cost.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between those models otherwise we would not have two separate models. In a poll-based model interactions between task and runtime look roughly like this: - task to runtime: I want to read data on this file descriptor.
I will read data from FD and then will process it. While in a completion based model it looks roughly like this: - task to runtime: I want data to be read into this buffer which is part of my state. I can process it. It means that you can not simply drop a task if you no longer need its results, like Rust currently assumes.
You have either wait for the data read request to complete or to possibly asynchronously request cancellation of this request. With the current Rust async if you want to integrate with io-uring you would have to use awkward buffers managed by runtime, instead of simple buffers which are part of the task state.
So I don't think that the decision to allow dropping tasks without an explicit cancellation was a good one, even despite the convenience which it brings. FWIW, I'd bet almost anything that this problem isn't solvable in any general way without linear types, at which point I bet it would be a somewhat easy modification to what Rust has already implemented.
I did a double take seeing your username above this comment! This is an article about why linear types are hard to implement You have given no evidence against this idea. I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you were saying that linear types would be easy to implement.
I wasn't trying to say anything about the stuff you'd do with them if you had them. Maybe in the context of some other language, Rust's decision was not the best one, but not for Rust, because Rust just doesn't have linear types. SkiFire13 25 days ago [�]. I'm not familiar with linear types but as far as I can see they're pretty much the same as rust's ownership rules. Is there something I'm missing? Rust implements affine types, which means every object must be used at most once.
You cannot use them twice, but you can discard them and not do anything with them. Linear types means exactly once. ATS has linear types. How does this proposal address the problems with "blocking on drop does not work" here? It's that Rust has affine types and not linear types. This is not something that could have been solved with more work on the design. It is not that there was "a decision" to allow dropping tasks; it's a constraint on the design that the language requires.
Personally, I'm unsure as to whether a practical language with true linear types is possible, but it's worth experimenting with. Rust is not and never will be that language, however. I'm also curious about this. Really the biggest problem might be that switching out backends is currently very difficult in rust, even the 0.
There's a workaround, but it's unidiomatic, requires more traits, and requires inefficient copying of data if you want to adapt from one to the other. However, I wouldn't call this a problem with a polling-based model.
At least part of the goal here must be to avoid allocations and reference counting. It wouldn't prevent some unidiomaticness from existing � you still couldn't, say, have an async function do a read into a Vec, because a Vec is not reference counted � but if the entire async ecosystem used reference counted buffers, the ergonomics would be pretty decent.
But we do care about avoiding allocations and reference counting, resulting in this problem. However, that means a completion-based model wouldn't really help, because a completion-based model essentially requires allocations and reference counting for the futures themselves. To me, the question is whether Rust could have avoided this with a different polling-based model. It definitely could have avoided it with a model where the allocations for async functions are always managed by the system, just like the stacks used for regular functions are.
But that would lose the elegance of async fns being 'just' a wrapper over a state machine. Perhaps, though, Rust could also have avoided it with just some tweaks to how Pin works [1]� but I am not sure whether this is actually viable. If it is, then that might be one motivation for eventually replacing Pin with a different construct, albeit a weak motivation by itself. Having investigated this myself, I would be very surprised to discover that it is.
The only viable solution to make AsyncRead zero cost for io-uring would be to have required futures to be polled to completion before they are dropped. So you can give up on select and most necessary concurrency primitives. You really want to be able to stop running futures you don't need, after all. If you want the kernel to own the buffer, you should just let the kernel own the buffer.
Therefore, AsyncBufRead. This will require the ecosystem to shift where the buffer is owned, of course, and that's a cost of moving to io-uring. Tough, but those are the cards we were dealt. Well, you can still have select; it "just" has to react to one of the futures becoming ready by cancelling all the other ones and waiting asynchronously for the cancellation to be complete.
Future doesn't currently have a "cancel" method, but I guess it would just be represented as async drop. So this requires some way of enforcing that async drop is called, which is hard, but I believe it's equally hard as enforcing that futures are polled to completion: either way you're requiring that some method on the future be called, and polled on, before the memory the future refers to can be reused.
For the sake of this post I'll assume it's somehow possible. Rather, you're running select in a loop in order to handle each completed operation as it comes.
You often do want to cancel them in some branches of the code that handles the result for example, if they error. And this doesn't even get into the much better buffer management strategies io-uring has baked into it, like registered buffers and buffer pre-allocation. I'm really skeptical of making those work with AsyncRead now you need to define buffer types that deref to slices that are tracking these things independent of the IO object , but since AsyncBufRead lets the IO object own the buffer, it is trivial.
Moving the ecosystem that cares about io-uring to AsyncBufRead a trait that already exists and letting the low level IO code handle the buffer is a strictly better solution than requiring futures to run until they're fully, truly cancalled. Protocol libraries should already expose the ability to parse the protocol from an arbitrary stream of buffers, instead of directly owning an IO handle.
I'm sure some libraries don't, but that's a mistake that this will course correct. Matthias 25 days ago [�]. Which is more or less what the structured concurrency primitives in Kotlin, Trio, and soon Swift are doing. Wouldn't a more 'correct' implementation be moving the buffer into the thing that initiates the future and thus, abstractly, into the future , rather than refcounting? At least with IOCP you aren't really supposed to even touch the memory region given to the completion port until it's signaled completion iirc.
It's just what I would expect an api working against iocp to look like, and I feel like it avoids many of the issues you're talking about. Essentially each component has a buffered interface an interface message queue , which static analysis sizes at compile time. This buffer can act as a daemon, ref counter, offline dropbox, cache, cancellation check, and can probably help with cycle checking.
Is this the sort of model which would be useful here? KingOfCoders 26 days ago [�]. The poll model has the advantage that you have control when async work starts and therefor is the more predictable model.
I guess that way it fits more the Rust philosophy. Could Rust switch? More importantly, would a completion based model alleviate the problems mentioned? Without introducing Rust 2? Highly unlikely. I should have worded my message more carefully. Completion-based model is not a silver bullet which would magically solve all problems though I think it would help a bit with the async Drop problem.
The problem is that Rust async was rushed without careful deliberation, which causes a number of problems without a clear solution in sight. Just because one disagrees with the conclusion does not mean that the conclusion was made in haste or in ignorance. This is incorrect. But this scenario is overly dramatic: the benefits of a completion-based model are not so clear-cut as to warrant such actions.
Believe me, I do understand the motivation behind the decision to push async stabilization in the developed form at least I think I do. And I do not intend to argue in a bad faith. My point is that in my opinion the Rust team has chosen to get the mid-term boost of Rust popularity at the expense of the long-term Rust health.
Yes, you are correct that in theory it's possible to deprecate the current version of async. But as you note yourself, it's highly unlikely to happen since the current solution is "good enough".
I and many others would disagree that they made the decision "at the expense of the long-term Rust health". You aren't arguing in good faith if you put words in their mouth. There is no data to suggest the long-term health of rust is at stake because of the years long path they took in stabilizing async today. There are merits to both models but nothing is as clear-cut as you make it to be - completion-based futures are not definitively better than poll-based and would have a lot of trade-offs.
To phrase this as "Completion based is totally better and the only reason it wasn't done was because it would take too long and Rust needed popularity soon" is ridiculous. I do not put words in their mouth or have you missed the "in my opinion" part?
The issues with Pin, problems around noalias, inability to design a proper async Drop solution, not a great compatibility with io-uring and IOCP. In my eyes they are indicators that Rust health in the async field has suffered.
I find your statements so strange. I honestly don't care about noalias, and very few people really should. Same with 'async drop'. Same with io-uring, which seems to be totally fine in Rust so far. Despite your repeated statements that async has harmed Rust, I don't have any problem whatsoever day to day writing 10s of thousands of lines of async code with regards to what you've brought up.
Isn't it very likely that going the other route would also result in a different but equally long list of issues? Yes, it's a real possibility. But the problem is that the other route was not properly explored, so we can not compare advantages and disadvantages. Instead Rust went all-in on a bet which was made 3 years ago. I don't think a conscious decision of that sort was made?
My impression is that at the time the road taken was understood to be the correct solution and not a compromise. Is that wrong? The decision was made 3 years ago and at the time it was indeed a good one, but the situation has changed and the old decision was not in my opinion properly reviewed. Does anything about the implementation of async prevent a future completion-based async feature?
Yes, it's possible, but it will be a second way of doing async, which will split the ecosystem even further. Unfortunately, the poll-based solution is "good enough" I guess, some may say that "perfect is the enemy of good" applies here, but I disagree.
I was going to say FridgeSeal 25 days ago [�]. Are we talking about the same Rust? I remember the debate and consideration over async was enormous and involved. There exists actually a proposal for adding completion based futures at [1], which is compatible to what exists now and certainly doesn't require a Rust 2.
It will however certainly increase the language surface area. I think there are 2 separate findings in it: First of all yes, Rust futures use a poll model, where any state changes from different tasks don't directly call completions, but instead just schedule the original task to wake up again. I still think this is a good fit, and makes a lot of sense. It avoids a lot of errors on having a variety of state on the call stack before calling the continuation, which then gets invalidated.
The model by itself also doesn't automatically make using completion based IO impossible. However the polling model in Rust is combined with the model of always being able to drop a Future in order to cancel a task. This doesn't allow to use lower level libraries which require to do this without applying any additional workarounds.
However that part of Rusts model could be enhanced if there is enough interest in it. Why did polling have to be baked into the language? Seems bizarre for a supposedly portable language to assume the functionality of an OS feature which could change in the future.
Rust also didn't solve the colored functions problem. It could have been a great opportunity for them. Linear typing for systems languages had already been done in ats, cyclone, and clean, the latter two of which were a major inspiration for rust.
Perhaps more accurate to say "safe reclamation of dynamic allocations without GC was not known to be possible in a practical programming language, before Rust". The problem with languages like ATS and Cyclone is that you need heavy usage in real-world applications to prove that your approach is actually usable by developers at scale.
Rust achieved that first. Cyclone was a c derivative I believe it was even backwards compatible , and ats a blend of ml and c. Ml and c are both certainly proven. Cyclone was, and ats is, a research project; not necessarily intended to achieve widespread use. And again, obj-c was being used by apple in drivers, which is certainly a real-world application. GC is a memory management policy in which the programmer does not need to manually end the lifetimes of objects.
Rust is a garbage collected language. How many manual calls to 'drop' or 'free' does the average rust program have? Cyclone wasn't backwards-compatible with C. Yes, Cyclone and ATS were research projects, that's why they were never able to accumulate the real-world experience needed to demonstrate that their ideas work at scale.
Objective-C isn't memory safe. By "GC" here I meant memory reclamation schemes that require runtime support and object layout changes If you use the term "garbage collection" in a more expansive way, so that you say Rust "is a garbage collected language", then most people are going to misunderstand you.
No, but it is garbage collected. One example of a popular GC is the boehm GC. It provides a drop-in replacement for malloc, usable in c for existing c structures without any ABI changes.
Perhaps you are thinking specifically of compacting GCs, which usually need objects to have a header with a forwarding pointer?
I don't think there's any argument to be made that they are garbage collection. What's the difference between them and some other runtime support? What's interesting is a memory management policy which supports garbage collection and is usable for a systems programming language.
This meaning is generally understood and accepted throughout the literature. It's also the thing that's specifically interesting here: manually managing object lifetimes is error-prone and tends to lead to bugs, and bugs in systems software tend to be far-reaching, so a way to eliminate those bugs categorically is considered valuable.
That's fair as such, but I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than that. The semantics of ats and cyclone are largely designed to augment c directly. Ats's proof semantics in particular map very well to the semantics of c programs as written. Which, true, doesn't prove anything, but shows that there is much less to be proved: the existing paradigm can still be used. Are the several multikloc ats compilers out there not real-world enough?
I have connections with the academic GC community. I gave an invited talk at ISMM I guarantee that they will not agree "Rust is a garbage-collected language". FWIW Wikipedia describes "garbage collection" as "a form of automatic memory management" and goes on to say "Other similar techniques include stack allocation, region inference, memory ownership I prefer to avoid arguing about the meaning of words but it's not good to sow confusion.
Yes, projects written by the creators of the language are not enough. I have always thought Pascal solved that in practise with automated reference counting on arrays A good optimizer could then have removed the counting on non-escaping local variables. If you squint, this is sorta what Swift is. This is comparing apples to oranges; Rust's general, no-assumptions-baked-in coroutines feature is called "generators", and are not yet stable.
Several OSes have proven their value written in GC enabled systems programming languages. Rust only proved that affine types can be easier than cyclone and ATS. They are just coroutines. Actually they have no implementation. The user has to write classes to implement the promise type and the awaitable type. The only thing it does behind your back other than compile to stackless coroutines is allocate memory, which also goes for a lot of other things.
Is this not also true of Rust? FWIW, I do not look at generators as being what I would want as my interface for working with coroutines, and am very much on board there with the comments from tommythorn.
I guess I just have too many decades of experience working with coroutines in various systems I have used :. You can write your own, you can use someone else's. I have not done enough of a deep dive into what made it into the standard to give you a great line-by-line comparison.
Which makes them quite powerful, as they allow for other kinds of patterns. It requires allocation if the coroutine outlives the scope that created it.
Otherwise compiler are free to implement heap allocation elision which is done in Clang. I don't think I've implied that allocation in Rust was implicit but that's a fair point. It is true that some executors will do a single allocation for the whole series, but that is not done by Rust, nor is required.
That's all! This comes with a non-negligible amount of small text for Rust when compared to garbage-collected languages. I'm not totally sure what the author is asking for, apart from refcounting and heap allocations that happen behind your back. In my experience async Rust is heavily characterised by tasks Futures which own their data.
They have to - when you spawn it, you're offloading ownership of its state to an executor that will keep it alive for some period of time that is out of the spawning code's control.
You pay for extra heap allocations and indirection, but avoid specifying generics that spread up your type hierarchy, and no longer need to play by the borrow checker's rules. I'm a giant Rust fanboy and have been since about So, for context, this was literally before Futures existed in Rust.
The problem, IMO, isn't about allocations or ownership. In fact, I think that a lot of the complaints about async Rust aren't even about async Rust or Futures. But it's perfectly fair to say that idiomatic Rust is not a functional language, and passing functions around is just not the first tool to grab from your toolbelt. I think the actual complaint is not about "async", but actually about traits.
Traits are paradoxically one of Rust's best features and also a super leaky and incomplete abstraction. Let's say you know a bit of Rust and you're kind of working through some problem.
Now you want to abstract the implementation by wrapping those functions in a trait. The compiler complains that async trait methods aren't allowed.
How do you know if you need or want those bounds? So now you might try an associated type, which is what you usually do for a trait with "generic" return values. That works okay, except that now your implementation has to wrap its return value in Box::pin, which is extra overhead that wasn't there when you just had the standalone functions with no abstraction.
It's actually caused by traits. Which is unfortunate, because the fact that Rust has true type classes is absolutely awesome. But when dealing with traits, you have to remember the orphan rules, and the implicit object-safety rules- which sucks, because you might not have planned on using trait objects when you first defined the trait, but only tried to do so later.
Async definitely makes it even more painful. I wonder if most of the pain is actually caused by Rust async being an MVP, so things like async trait functions which would be very nice don't exist I don't know if anybody has shown that they can't ever exist, it's just that they weren't considered necessary to get the initial async features out of the door.
Rather like how you can't use impl Trait in trait method signatures either there's definitely some generics-implications-complexity going on with that one. Closures don't work so neatly as in Haskell; currying has to be different. In my experience, programming stuffs at a higher-level-language where things are heavily abstracted, like cough NodeJS, is easy and simple up to a certain point where I have to do a certain low-level things fast e.
Often times I have to resort to making a native module or helper exe just to mitigate this. That feels like reinventing the wheel because the actual wheel I need is deep under an impenetrable layer of abstraction. This is where Scala and JVM based languages would shine in theory, the JVM has a well defined memory model, provides great low-level tools, etc.
But JVM-based software is always very bulky to deploy, both in terms of memory and size, so this shining is rarely seen in practice. Memory usage has been my main issue with JVM, running an instance of it is very costly compared to languages that compiles to near abstract machines or at least have minimal runtime code like Go.
Anyway on abstraction, it's just hard, because everyone has different concept of what abstraction is. For some it's just combining couple of function calls into one, for some it is providing defaults, for some it is providing composable functions with controllable continuations. I like to joke that the best way to encounter the ugliest parts of Rust is to implement an HTTP router.
I call this The Dispatch Tax. It's like Rust is punishing you for using it. It's like there's no type system anymore, only structs. That's one of the reasons, I think, why Go has won the Control Plane. Sure, projects like K8s, Docker, the whole HashiCorp suite are old news. It seems to me that there's some fundamental connection between flexibility of convenient dynamic dispatch and control plane tasks.
And of course having the default runtime and building blocks like net and http in the standard library is a huge win. That said, after almost three months of daily Rust it does get better. To the point when you can actually feel that some intuition and genuine understanding is there, and you can finally work on your problems instead of fighting with the language.
I just wish that the initial learning curve wasn't so high. But I only agree that the async part of that is unfortunate. Making dynamic dispatch have a little extra friction is a feature, not a bug, so to speak.
But, I agree that async is really unergonomic once you go beyond the most trivial examples some of which the article doesn't even cover. Then it's compounded by the fact that Rust has these "implicit" traits that are usually implemented automatically, like Send, Sync, Unpin.
It's great until you write a bunch of code that compiles just fine in the module, but you go to plug it in to some other code and realize that you actually needed it to be Send and it's not. Crap- gotta go back and massage it until it's Send or Unpin or whatever. Oh yeah, I can totally relate to the Send-Sync-Unpin massaging, plus 'static bound for me. It's so weird that individually each of them kinda makes sense, but often you need to combine then and all of a sudden the understanding of combinations just does not..
After a minute or two of trying to figure out what should actually go into that bound I give up, remove all of them and start adding them back one by one until the compiler is happy.
I've been doing Rust for years at this point not full time, and with long gaps- granted , and it's exactly like you said: individually these things are simple, but then you're trying to figure out where you accidentally let a reference cross an await boundary that killed your automatic Unpin that you didn't realize you needed. Suddenly it feels like you don't understand it like you thought you did.
The static lifetime bound is annoying, too! I guess it crops up if you take a future and compose it with another one? Both future implementations have to be static types to guarantee they live long enough once passed into the new future. I don't know. So we're stuck with the semantics we have today. I think Rust is also able to hide certain things.
But of course you want to use async and hyper and tokio and your favorite async db connection pool. As a user of the language, especially in the beginning, I do not want to know of and be penalized by all the crazy transformations that the compiler is doing behind the scene.
And for the record, you can have memory leaks in Rust too. But that's besides the point. When using a container containing a function, you only have to think allocating memory for the function pointer, which is almost always statically allocated. However for an async function, there's not only the function, but the future as well. As a user the language now poses a problem to you, where does the memory for the future live. You could statically allocate the future ex.
But this isn't very flexible and you'd have to hand roll your own Future type. It's not as ergonomic as async fn, but I've done it before in environments where I needed to avoid allocating memory. You decide to box everything what you posted. However most people don't care about "zero-cost", and come from languages where the solution is the runtime just boxes everything for you.
Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't think of 1 , although it's a pity that it's not as ergonomic as async fn. Is there maybe a third option, when I as a developer aware of the allocation and dispatch costs, but the compiler will do all the boilerplate for me.
In this example rust doesn't just make me aware of the tradeoffs. It almost feels like the language is actively standing in the way of making the trade offs I want to make. At least as the language is today. I think a bunch of upcoming features like unsized rvalues and async fns in traits will help. Perhaps, but a bigger problem is that lots of folks are using Rust in a non-systems context see HN frontpage on any random day. It makes using libraries kind of tough, and I think you end up with a model where you have a thread-per-library so the library knows it has a valid runtime, which is totally weird.
All that said, the author's article reads as a bit daft. Both need to writable? Arc Mutex. You are a genius and can guarantee this Fn will never leak and it's safe to have it not capture something by value that is used later in the program and you really need the performance of not using Arc?
Cast it to a ptr and read in an unsafe block in the closure. Rust doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want in this regard, it just makes you explicitly ask for what you want rather than doing something stupid automatically and making you have a hard to find bug later down the line.
There are easy paths in most programming languages, and harder paths. Rust is no exception. The same could be said of trying to do reflection in Go, or garbage collection in C. Then maybe it was a mistake to adopt an async paradigm from functional languages that relies heavily on the idea that first-class functions are cheap and easy?
FWIW I think Rust was right to pick Scala-style async; it's really the only nice way of working with async that I've seen, in any language. I think the mistake was not realising the importance of first-class functions and prioritising them higher. From there, it appears python and typescript added their equivalents in [2]. If anything, async-await feels like an extremely non-functional thing to begin with, in the sense that in a functional language it should generally be easier to treat the execution model itself as abstracted away.
In fact async-await is a specialization of various monad syntactic sugars that try to eliminate long callback chains that commonly affect many different sorts of monads. To see how async-await might be generalized, one could turn to various other specializations of the same syntax, e.
To see the correspondence with a flatMap method which is the main component of a monad , it's enough to look at the equivalent callback-heavy code and see that it looks something like Future 5. I'm not clear on if this is supposed to be disagreement or elaboration or education.
The fact that in a language like Haskell, you can perform something like async-await with futures which are absolutely a kind of monad in a natural way is precisely what I had in mind with what you quoted. Regardless, the specific heritage of async-await syntax seems rooted in procedural languages that do borrow much else as well from functional languages, yet are still not functional in any meaningful sense like C and python.
They are absolutely an attempt to bring some of the power of something like monadic application including do notation into a procedural environment as an alternative to threads green or otherwise , which hide the execution state machine completely. Async-await in both syntax and semantics is pretty firmly rooted in the FP tradition. For semantics, the original implementation in C , and as far as I know most of its successors, is to take imperative-looking code and transform it into CPS-ed code.
For syntax, the idea of hiding all that CPS behind an imperative-looking syntax sugar is the whole reason why do-notation and its descendants exist. But my point was simply that there's a pretty straight line from CPS, monads, and do-notation to async-await and so I think it's pretty fair to say that async-await is rooted in the FP tradition. It's very much a functional lineage.
I wasn't aware of the F heritage, that's interesting. I'm curious why the scala proposal wouldn't cite it. Especially surprising since scala's at least superficially looks more like F 's than it does like C 's. So what's weird to me is drawing a direct line between scala and rust here when the relevant precedent seems to be procedural languages distilling a thing from functional languages into a less flexible syntactic-sugar mechanism we now usually call async-await.
Scala seems like a footnote here, where if you want to claim its descent from functional languages you would go farther back. I'd say it's mainly a way of doing monadic futures in languages that don't have monads mainly because of lacking HKT - hence why F adopted it first, and then it made its way into functional-friendly languages that either didn't have HKT, or in Scala's case found it to be a useful shortcut anyway.
What I'm getting at is that I see the specific syntax of "async-await" as a synthesis of concepts from functional and procedural heritage. I agree about it being a spectrum and all that, so I think we're mostly just talking past each other about the specifics of how it came to be and using different ways of describing that process.
What procedural heritage do they have? I don't think there's anything procedural about them unless you consider "doesn't have HKT" to be the same as "procedural".
The only thing in common to me is the monadic nature of Future itself. It's always possible there's a better way. If you know of one, maybe you can write a proposal? There is always Rust v2. Rust lacks a BDFL and so it's almost like the language grows itself.
Chances are, the async model that was used was picked because it was arrived upon via consensus. I don't think there is a better approach; I think the right thing would have been to lay proper functional foundations to make async practical. I did speak against NLL at the time, and I keep arguing that HKT should be a higher priority, but the consensus favoured the quick hack.
I agree that Rust should have embraced HKTs instead of resisting them every step of the way. It's been my observation that the Rust lang team is pretty much against HKTs as a general feature, which makes me sad. I'm also happy to meet the only other person who had reservations about NLL! It really is super ergonomic and convenient, but I really value language simplicity and NLL makes the language more complex.
I also don't think there's much Rust can do differently in regards to "functional foundations". HKTs were considered, and do not actually solve the problem, in Rust. Rust is not Haskell. The differences matter. Nobody is against HKTs on some sort of conceptual level. They just literally do not work to solve this problem in Rust. Which problem are we referring to?
I was only making a general statement that I think Rust would have benefited from HKTs instead of doing umpteen ad-hoc implementations of specific higher-kinded types. I'm not saying that HKTs would fix most of the issues mentioned in the article around tricky closure semantics and whatnot.
In the sense that HKTs are a higher level abstraction, sure. More later. My understanding is that GATs can get similar things done to HKTs for some stuff that Rust cares about, but that doesn't give them a subtyping relationship. Haskell has both higher kinded types and type families.
That being said, my copy of Pierce is gathering dust. It depends on what you mean by "somehow. This is because, in Haskell, these things have the same signatures.
In Rust, they do not have the same signature. Iterator returns Option, while Future returns something like it. These do have the same shape in the end though, so maybe this is surmountable. Though then you have backwards compat issues 2. Future takes an extra argument These are real, practical problems that would need to be sorted, and it's not clear how, or even if it's possible to, sort them.
Yes, if you handwave "they're sort of the same thing at a high enough level of abstraction! But it is very unclear how, or if it is even possible to, get there. For reference: This is nonsense; Try and Future are not the same thing in Haskell, there are plenty of functions you can only call with one or the other.
Yes, there are low-level things you might want to do with Future or Result that you can't do via the monad interface - just as with any other high-level interface.
But having the high-level interface available makes the simple, common cases a lot easier. Sorry, you're right! Ironically, I remembered the high level problem, but filled in the wrong concrete details. It may be possible, but it's not a simple "just do x. Another point here is that "impl Trait in traits" isn't currently implemented in Rust either; this one is more feasible, though I am less sure about it when parameterized.
I guess the counterargument is that impl trait is not a first-class type? In any case, "Liskov-substitutable for" instead of "a subtype of" carries my point. If there's genuinely a question mark about the possibility, would making an working implementation that makes a lot of arbitrary choices about syntax, efficiency etc.
And it doesn't really mean "Liskov substitutable" either. After all, it names a single type, just un-named. It might, but it's also possible that the team has other objections I'm not aware of.
GolDDranks 20 days ago [�]. You can't do that, ergo, it's not a subtype. This kind of toxicity is why I left programming behind as a career. How is saying Rust is one thing but not another thing toxic?
One way to read you comment, which maybe you didn't intend, is "this is a language for Real Work, not one for those silly academics. I think it's the "for" to the end of the sentence that does it. That would make sense.
After all, if you have the same goals as another language, you just may end up re-creating the same language with different syntax. That said, it would be nice if someday Rust could be as convenient to write FP in as say Lisp or Haskell. TheCoelacanth 26 days ago [�]. Yeah, a struct holding four different closures is not a pattern that makes much sense in Rust. That would look a lot better as a Trait with four methods.
If a company sells products or services easily measured in units e. If a company sells products or services not easily measured in units e. Question: How is the break-even point in units calculated, and what is the break-even point for Snowboard Company?
Answer: The break-even point in units is found by setting profit to zero using the profit equation. Once profit is set to zero, fill in the appropriate information for selling price per unit S , variable cost per unit V , and total fixed costs F , and solve for the quantity of units produced and sold Q.
To find the break-even point in units for Snowboard Company, set the profit to zero, insert the unit sales price S , insert the unit variable cost V , insert the total fixed costs F , and solve for the quantity of units produced and sold Q :. Thus Snowboard Company must produce and sell snowboards to break even.
This answer is confirmed in the following contribution margin income statement. Question: Although it is helpful for companies to know the break-even point, most organizations are more interested in determining the sales required to make a targeted amount of profit. How does finding the target profit in units help companies like Snowboard Company?
Answer: Finding a target profit in units The number of units that must be sold to achieve a certain profit. At Snowboard Company, Recilia the vice president of sales and Lisa the accountant are in their next weekly meeting.
How is the profit equation used to find a target profit amount in units? Answer: Finding the target profit in units is similar to finding the break-even point in units except that profit is no longer set to zero. Instead, set the profit to the target profit the company would like to achieve. Then fill in the information for selling price per unit S , variable cost per unit V , and total fixed costs F , and solve for the quantity of units produced and sold Q :.
This answer is confirmed in the following contribution margin income statement:. Question: Although using the profit equation to solve for the break-even point or target profit in units tends to be the easiest approach, we can also use a shortcut formula derived from this equation.
What is the shortcut formula, and how is it used to find the target profit in units for Snowboard Company? Answer: The shortcut formula is as follows:. The result is the same as when we used the profit equation.
Question: Finding the break-even point in units works well for companies that have products easily measured in units, such as snowboard or bike manufacturers, but not so well for companies that have a variety of products not easily measured in units, such as law firms and restaurants. How do companies find the break-even point if they cannot easily measure sales in units? Answer: For these types of companies, the break-even point is measured in sales dollars.
That is, we determine the total revenue total sales dollars required to achieve zero profit for companies that cannot easily measure sales in units. Finding the break-even point in sales dollars requires the introduction of two new terms: contribution margin per unit and contribution margin ratio.
The contribution margin per unit The amount each unit sold contributes to 1 covering fixed costs and 2 increasing profit. We calculate it by subtracting variable costs per unit V from the selling price per unit S.
The contribution margin ratio The contribution margin as a percentage of sales; it measures the amount each sales dollar contributes to 1 covering fixed costs and 2 increasing profit; also called contribution margin percent. It measures the amount each sales dollar contributes to 1 covering fixed costs and 2 increasing profit.
The contribution margin ratio is the contribution margin per unit divided by the selling price per unit. Note that the contribution margin ratio can also be calculated using the total contribution margin and total sales; the result is the same. For Snowboard Company the contribution margin ratio is 40 percent:. Question: With an understanding of the contribution margin and contribution margin ratio, we can now calculate the break-even point in sales dollars.
How do we calculate the break-even point in sales dollars for Snowboard Company? Answer: The formula to find the break-even point in sales dollars is as follows. The following contribution margin income statement confirms this answer:. Question: Finding a target profit in sales dollars The total sales measured in dollars required to achieve a certain profit. Instead, target profit is set to the profit the company would like to achieve.
Answer: Use the break-even formula described in the previous section. Airlines measure break-even points, also called load factors , in terms of the percentage of seats filled. At the end of , one firm estimated that United had to fill 96 percent of its seats just to break even. This is well above the figure for other major airlines, as you can see in the list that follows:.
Other airlines continue to work on reducing their break-even points and maximizing the percentage of seats filled. Question: The relationship of costs, volume, and profit can be displayed in the form of a graph. What does this graph look like for Snowboard Company, and how does it help management evaluate financial information related to the production of snowboards? Answer: Figure 6. The vertical axis represents dollar amounts for revenues, costs, and profits.
The horizontal axis represents the volume of activity for a period, measured as units produced and sold for Snowboard. There are three lines in the graph:. The total revenue line shows total revenue based on the number of units produced and sold. The total cost line shows total cost based on the number of units produced and sold. The profit line shows profit or loss based on the number of units produced and sold.
It is simply the difference between the total revenue and total cost lines. Question: Managers often like to know how close projected sales are to the break-even point. How is this information calculated and used by management? Answer: The excess of projected sales over the break-even point is called the margin of safety The excess of expected sales over the break-even point, measured in units and in sales dollars.
The margin of safety represents the amount by which sales can fall before the company incurs a loss. Assume Snowboard Company expects to sell snowboards and that its break-even point is units; the margin of safety is units. The calculation is. Thus sales can drop by units per month before the company begins to incur a loss. The margin of safety can also be stated in sales dollars.
Cost-volume-profit analysis involves finding the break-even and target profit point in units and in sales dollars. The key formulas for an organization with a single product are summarized in the following list.
The margin of safety formula is also shown:. Break-even or target profit point measured in sales dollars :. Star Symphony would like to perform for a neighboring city.
Star Symphony expects to sell tickets. Question: Although the previous section illustrated cost-volume-profit CVP analysis for companies with a single product easily measured in units, most companies have more than one product or perhaps offer services not easily measured in units. Suppose you are the manager of a company called Kayaks-For-Fun that produces two kayak models, River and Sea.
What information is needed to calculate the break-even point for this company? Answer: The following information is required to find the break-even point:. Question: Given the information provided for Kayaks-For-Fun, how will the company calculate the break-even point? Answer: First, we must expand the profit equation presented earlier to include multiple products.
The following terms are used once again. However, subscript r identifies the River model, and subscript s identifies the Sea model e. CM is new to this section and represents the contribution margin.
Without going through a detailed derivation, this equation can be restated in a simplified manner for Kayaks-For-Fun, as follows:.
One manager at Kayaks-For-Fun believes the break-even point should be 60 units in total, and another manager believes the break-even point should be units in total.
Which manager is correct? The answer is both might be correct. If only the River kayak is produced and sold, 60 units is the break-even point.
If only the Sea kayak is produced and sold, units is the break-even point. There actually are many different break-even points, because the profit equation has two unknown variables, Q r and Q s. Further evidence of multiple break-even points is provided as follows allow for rounding to the nearest unit , and shown graphically in Figure 6. Question: Because most companies sell multiple products that have different selling prices and different variable costs, the break-even or target profit point depends on the sales mix.
What is the sales mix, and how is it used to calculate the break-even point? In the case of Kayaks-For-Fun, the River model accounts for 60 percent of total unit sales and the Sea model accounts for 40 percent of total unit sales. In calculating the break-even point for Kayaks-For-Fun, we must assume the sales mix for the River and Sea models will remain at 60 percent and 40 percent, respectively, at all different sales levels.
The formula used to solve for the break-even point in units for multiple-product companies is similar to the one used for a single-product company, with one change. Instead of using the contribution margin per unit in the denominator, multiple-product companies use a weighted average contribution margin per unit.
The formula to find the break-even point in units is as follows. The resulting weighted unit contribution margins for all products are then added together. We can now determine the break-even point in units by using the following formula:.
Again, this assumes the sales mix remains the same at different levels of sales volume. Question: We now know how to calculate the break-even point in units for a company with multiple products.
How do we extend this process to find the target profit in units for a company with multiple products? Answer: Finding the target profit in units for a company with multiple products is similar to finding the break-even point in units except that profit is no longer set to zero.
Instead, profit is set to the target profit the company would like to achieve. Information for these three products is as follows:. Assume the sales mix remains the same at all levels of sales. As calculated previously, 20, printers must be sold to break even. Using the sales mix provided, the following number of units of each printer must be sold to break even:. Such companies need a different approach to finding the break-even point. Question: For companies that have unique products not easily measured in units, how do we find the break-even point?
Answer: Rather than measuring the break-even point in units, a more practical approach for these types of companies is to find the break-even point in sales dollars. We can use the formula that follows to find the break-even point in sales dollars for organizations with multiple products or services.
Note that this formula is similar to the one used to find the break-even point in sales dollars for an organization with one product, except that the contribution margin ratio now becomes the weighted average contribution margin ratio. Amy, the owner, would like to know what sales are required to break even. Note that fixed costs are known in total, but Amy does not allocate fixed costs to each department.
The contribution margin ratio differs for each department:. Question: We have the contribution margin ratio for each department, but we need it for the company as a whole. How do we find the contribution margin ratio for all of the departments in the company combined? Answer: The contribution margin ratio for the company as a whole is the weighted average contribution margin ratio The total contribution margin divided by total sales.
We calculate it by dividing the total contribution margin by total sales. This assumes that the sales mix remains the same at all levels of sales. The sales mix here is measured in sales dollars for each department as a proportion of total sales dollars. The resulting weighted average contribution margin ratios for all departments are then added. Question: How do we find the target profit in sales dollars for companies with products not easily measured in units?
Answer: Finding the target profit in sales dollars for a company with multiple products or services is similar to finding the break-even point in sales dollars except that profit is no longer set to zero. Question: Several assumptions are required to perform break-even and target profit calculations for companies with multiple products or services. What are these important assumptions? Answer: These assumptions are as follows:. When performing CVP analysis, it is important to consider the accuracy of these simplifying assumptions.
It is always possible to design a more accurate and complex CVP model. But the benefits of obtaining more accurate data from a complex CVP model must outweigh the costs of developing such a model. Question: Managers often like to know how close expected sales are to the break-even point. As defined earlier, the excess of projected sales over the break-even point is called the margin of safety.
How is the margin of safety calculated for multiple-product and service organizations? The key formula used to calculate the break-even or target profit point in units for a company with multiple products is as follows.
The formula used to find the break-even point or target profit in sales dollars for companies with multiple products or service is as follows. Ott Landscape Incorporated provides landscape maintenance services for three types of clients: commercial, residential, and sports fields.
Financial projections for this coming year for the three segments are as follows:. Question: We can use the cost-volume-profit CVP financial model described in this chapter for single-product, multiple-product, and service organizations to perform sensitivity analysis, also called what-if analysis. How is sensitivity analysis used to help managers make decisions? Answer: Sensitivity analysis An analysis that shows how the CVP model will change with changes in any of its variables.
The focus is typically on how changes in variables will alter profit. The assumptions for Snowboard were as follows:. Management believes a goal of units is overly optimistic and settles on a best guess of units in monthly sales.
Question: Although management believes the base case is reasonably accurate, it is concerned about what will happen if certain variables change. As a result, you are asked to address the following questions from management you are now performing sensitivity analysis!
Each scenario is independent of the others. Unless told otherwise, assume that the variables used in the base case remain the same. How do you answer the following questions for management? Each column represents a different scenario, with the first column showing the base case and the remaining columns providing answers to the three questions posed by management.
The top part of Figure 6. Carefully review Figure 6. The column labeled Scenario 1 shows that increasing the price by 10 percent will increase profit Thus profit is highly sensitive to changes in sales price. Another way to look at this is that for every one percent increase in sales price, profit will increase by 8. Thus profit is also highly sensitive to changes in sales volume. Stated another way, every one percent decrease in sales volume will decrease profit by 3.
The column labeled Scenario 3 shows that decreasing fixed costs by 30 percent and increasing variable cost by 10 percent will increase profit Perhaps Snowboard Company is considering moving toward less automation and more direct labor! The accountants at Snowboard Company would likely use a spreadsheet program, such as Excel, to develop a CVP model for the sensitivity analysis shown in Figure 6.
Notice that the basic data are entered at the top of the spreadsheet data entry section , and the rest of the information is driven by formulas. This allows for quick sensitivity analysis of different scenarios. Question: Although the focus of sensitivity analysis is typically on how changes in variables will affect profit as shown in Figure 6.
How is sensitivity analysis used to evaluate the impact changes in variables will have on break-even and target profit points? How many units must Snowboard Company sell to break even? The following calculation is based on the shortcut formula presented earlier in the chapter:. We apply the same shortcut formula:. Three entrepreneurs in California were looking for investors and banks to finance a new brewpub.
Brewpubs focus on two segments: food from the restaurant segment, and freshly brewed beer from the beer production segment. All parties involved in the process of raising money�potential investors and banks, as well as the three entrepreneurs i. After months of research, the owners created a financial model that provided this information.
What will happen to profits if sales are lower than we expect? The owners knew the contribution margin ratio and all fixed costs from the financial model. With this information, they were able to calculate the break-even point and margin of safety.
The worried owner was relieved to discover that sales could drop over 35 percent from initial projections before the brewpub incurred an operating loss. This problem is an extension of Note 6. Base case information for these three products is as follows:.
Assume that each scenario that follows is independent of the others. Unless stated otherwise, the variables are the same as in the base case.
What is meant by the term cost structure? Answer: Cost structure The proportion of fixed and variable costs to total costs. Question: Operating leverage The level of fixed costs within an organization. How do we determine if a company has high operating leverage? Answer: Companies with a relatively high proportion of fixed costs have high operating leverage.
For example, companies that produce computer processors, such as NEC and Intel , tend to make large investments in production facilities and equipment and therefore have a cost structure with high fixed costs. Businesses that rely on direct labor and direct materials, such as auto repair shops, tend to have higher variable costs than fixed costs.
Operating leverage is an important concept because it affects how sensitive profits are to changes in sales volume. This is best illustrated by comparing two companies with identical sales and profits but with different cost structures, as we do in Figure 6. One way to observe the importance of operating leverage is to compare the break-even point in sales dollars for each company.
Answer: In Figure 6. If a company is relatively certain of increasing sales, then it makes sense to have higher operating leverage. Higher operating leverage can lead to higher profit. However, high operating leverage companies that encounter declining sales tend to feel the negative impact more than companies with low operating leverage.
Now assume both companies in Figure 6. What are the characteristics of a company with high operating leverage, and how do these characteristics differ from those of a company with low operating leverage? Companies with high operating leverage have a relatively high proportion of fixed costs to total costs, and their profits tend to be much more sensitive to changes in sales than their low operating leverage counterparts.
Companies with low operating leverage have a relatively low proportion of fixed costs to total costs, and their profits tend to be much less sensitive to changes in sales than their high operating leverage counterparts.
Question: Many companies have limited resources in such areas as labor hours, machine hours, facilities, and materials. When a company that produces multiple products faces a constraint, managers often calculate the contribution margin per unit of constraint in addition to the contribution margin per unit. The contribution margin per unit of constraint The contribution margin per unit divided by the units of constrained resource required to produce one unit of product.
How is this measure used by managers to make decisions when faced with resource constraints? The company produces two kayak models, River and Sea. Based on the information shown, Kayaks-For-Fun would prefer to sell more of the River model because it has the highest contribution margin per unit.
Kayaks-For-Fun has a total of labor hours available each month. The specialized skills required to build the kayaks makes it difficult for management to find additional workers. Assume the River model requires 4 labor hours per unit and the Sea model requires 1 labor hour per unit most of the variable cost for the Sea model is related to expensive materials required for production.
Kayaks-For-Fun sells everything it produces. Given its labor hours constraint, the company would prefer to maximize the contribution margin per labor hour. Analysis such as this often leads to further investigation. It may be that Kayaks-For-Fun can find additional labor to alleviate this resource constraint. Or perhaps the production process can be modified in a way that reduces the labor required to build the River model e.
Whatever the outcome, companies with limited resources are wise to calculate the contribution margin per unit of constrained resource. This review problem is based on the information for Kayaks-For-Fun presented previously. Assume Kayaks-For-Fun found additional labor, thereby eliminating this resource constraint. However, the company now faces limited available machine hours. It has a total of 3, machine hours available each month. The River model requires 16 machine hours per unit, and the Sea model requires 10 machine hours per unit.
Question: Some organizations, such as not-for-profit entities and governmental agencies, are not required to pay income taxes.
However, most for-profit organizations must pay income taxes on their profits. How do we find the target profit in units or sales dollars for organizations that pay income taxes? Step 1. Determine the desired target profit after taxes i. Step 2. Convert the desired target profit after taxes to the target profit before taxes.
Step 3. Use the target profit before taxes in the appropriate formula to calculate the target profit in units or sales dollars. Using Snowboard Company as an example, the assumptions are as follows:. Determine the desired target profit after taxes. The formula used to solve for target profit before taxes is as follows. The formula used to solve for target profit in units is. For Snowboard Company, it would read as follows:. Companies that incur income taxes must follow three steps to find the break-even point or target profit.
Convert the desired target profit after taxes to target profit before taxes using the following formula:. Use the target profit before taxes from step 2 in the appropriate target profit formula to calculate the target profit in units or in sales dollars.
This review problem is based on the information for Snowboard Company. The three steps to determine how many units must be sold to earn a target profit after taxes are as follows:.
The formula used to solve for target profit before taxes is. Use the target profit before taxes in the appropriate formula to calculate the target profit in units. The three steps to determine how many sales dollars are required to achieve a target profit after taxes are as follows:.
Convert the desired target profit after taxes to target profit before taxes. Use the target profit before taxes in the appropriate formula to calculate the target profit in sales dollars.
The formula used to solve for target profit in sales dollars is. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles U. Under U. GAAP, all nonmanufacturing costs selling and administrative costs are treated as period costs because they are expensed on the income statement in the period in which they are incurred. All costs associated with production are treated as product costs, including direct materials, direct labor, and fixed and variable manufacturing overhead.
These costs are attached to inventory as an asset on the balance sheet until the goods are sold, at which point the costs are transferred to cost of goods sold on the income statement as an expense.
This method of accounting is called absorption costing A costing method that includes all manufacturing costs fixed and variable in inventory until the goods are sold.
The term full costing is also used to describe absorption costing. Question: Although absorption costing is used for external reporting, managers often prefer to use an alternative costing approach for internal reporting purposes called variable costing. What is variable costing, and how does it compare to absorption costing? Answer: Variable costing A costing method that includes all variable manufacturing costs in inventory until the goods are sold just like absorption costing but reports all fixed manufacturing costs as an expense on the income statement when incurred.
Thus all fixed production costs are expensed as incurred. The only difference between absorption costing and variable costing is in the treatment of fixed manufacturing overhead. Using absorption costing, fixed manufacturing overhead is reported as a product cost. Using variable costing, fixed manufacturing overhead is reported as a period cost. Question: If a company uses just-in-time inventory, and therefore has no beginning or ending inventory, profit will be exactly the same regardless of the costing approach used.
However, most companies have units of product in inventory at the end of the reporting period. How does the use of absorption costing affect the value of ending inventory? Answer: Since absorption costing includes fixed manufacturing overhead as a product cost, all products that remain in ending inventory i.
Since variable costing treats fixed manufacturing overhead costs as period costs, all fixed manufacturing overhead costs are expensed on the income statement when incurred. Thus if the quantity of units produced exceeds the quantity of units sold, absorption costing will result in higher profit. We illustrate this concept with an example. The following information is for Bullard Company, a producer of clock radios:.
|
Classic Rc Model Boats Guide Custom Aluminum Boats Near Me Exercise Fishing Boats For Sale By Owner Craigslist Art |
14.03.2021 at 19:36:48 Vary in their durability and propensity for reviews 5.1 steamed.
14.03.2021 at 11:58:27 The powder-coated caprail surrounding the mqths operate to strech becoming High Fae against her will.
14.03.2021 at 16:42:27 More than a berth or a berth yap Kwan Seng, Kuala Lumpur pT RC Power Boats.
14.03.2021 at 13:13:11 Rebuilt by Kocian Instruments are faithful replicas of the original ship.