4 ms·
My big takeaway from the benchmark was that C++ used just over 20% the memory of rust. If you're stressing about performance, that's huge.
by lacampbell 7y ago
My big takeaway from the benchmark was that C++ used just over 20% the memory of rust. If you're stressing about performance, that's huge.
- ysleepy 7y agoThats probably just the rust binary being a bit larger, I wonder how the memory measurements are done. Java is suspiciously close to 512MiB which could mean they just looked at the RSS size of the process, but Java does not automatically give memory back to the system, especially if the min heap is set to something like 512M. Java being in the same order of magnitude of performance, they might be abandoning the java ecosystem to quickly considering how good the tooling and library ecosystem maturity is.
- apta 7y ago> but Java does not automatically give memory back to the system It depends on which GC is being used. Newer GC's like Shenandoah and ZGC (as well as G1GC I believe) do. It also seems they didn't look at GraalVM to generate native binaries for Java (e.g. https://quarkus.io https://quarkus.io)
- munificent 7y agoSure, but that benchmark is a single point on a manifold. That point may tell you little about your program which likely differs from the benchmark along several axes.
- lacampbell 7y agoSure, but it the post went "we need a language with great performance, so we chose the second most performant one according to this test.". It was a bit odd.
- 0815test 7y agoThey're just linking to an old blogpost from 2015 there. Back then Rust used to rely on a custom memory allocator which introduced a lot of RAM overhead, this has been fixed for quite some time now. Don't get me wrong, I like that these folks are using Rust, but this post is leaving me with a bit of a weird feeling - it just does not seem very impressive or meaningful.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]