5 ms·

Rust programs can theoretically be fast, but most of the ones I've used are slow. I tried two high profile implementations of the same type of software, one in

by zelly 6y ago

Rust programs can theoretically be fast, but most of the ones I've used are slow. I tried two high profile implementations of the same type of software, one in Rust and one in Java. The Java one was faster and used less memory. Rust programmers tend to do all kinds of little hacks here and there to make the borrow checker happy. It can add up. The borrow checker is perfectly happy when you copy everything. Rust is becoming one giant antipattern. (I'm sure highly experienced Rust programmers can get it to work, but there are probably less than 1000 people on this planet that can write good Rust that outperforms C++ so does it really count.)

doteka 6y ago
Interesting, could you elaborate on this software and what it does? At work, we also offer two backends for the same kind of functionality. One is the industry standard Java implementation, one is a homegrown Rust implementation. We find that for this usecase (essentially text processing, string manipulation and statistical algorithms), the rust version is much faster while using less memory. However, it is not as feature-rich.
- moonchild 6y ago
  Not the OP, but my guess is that rust will do well for the sort of code that would be fast in c anyway: linear operations large, contiguous arrays. For pointer-chasing code, or code with lots of small objects, the little tricks you use in c aren't available (or at least, not as accessible), and the lack of gc and flexibility wrt references harms you.
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    Code with lots of small short-lived objects is often by default faster in something like rust, because stack allocation is very efficient (even compared to the bump allocation in a generational GC, which is much more efficient than heap allocation but worse than stack). If you have a lot of objects which can exist on the stack in your program, java will tend to do poorly in comparison. (and in general java will trade off memory for speed: modern GCs can be very efficient in execution time but will use 2x-3x as much memory in return. If you want low memory usage your code is going to run slower).
    - mratsim 6y ago
      Does the borrow checker interfere with memory and object pools implementation? Because if you require heap allocation for many short-lived objects, I expect this would be one of Java strengths unless you use an object pool.
      - steveklabnik 6y ago
        "interfere" is a funny word, but you could do this in Rust. It's not super common, though the related technique of "arenas" can be, depending on domain.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
imtringued 6y ago
I can't reduce JVM memory usage below 100MB. It simply is impossible. Meanwhile with rust I can easily write 20 times more memory efficient applications.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Try Graal native image. It precompiles all code ahead of time and drops all metadata that you don't explicitly say you need. The results start as fast as a C program would and uses 5-10x less memory. The trade-off is lower runtime performance: hotspot is using that memory to make your app run faster at peak.
the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
I will agree that Rust programs can be surprisingly slow. That said, in most cases I have experienced this it came down to very simple to detect situations that are usually resolved by enclosing some large things in smart pointers. I consider this a plus because that's a pretty simple change.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
> Rust programmers tend to do all kinds of little hacks here and there to make the borrow checker happy. It can add up. The borrow checker is perfectly happy when you copy everything. Do you mind sharing an example? If you're talking about using to_owned or clone without reason, then it's fully on the developer. Some more pitfalls to avodi: https://llogiq.github.io/2017/06/01/perf-pitfalls.html https://llogiq.github.io/2017/06/01/perf-pitfalls.html What you say definitely doesn't match my experience. I would say Java code and Rust code are roughly in the same order of processing speed but the JVM "wastes" some memory. You also have garbage collection complicating performance in some scenarios. I'm pretty sure you can get in the same processing speed ballpark with careful programming in both languages. Outperforming C++ is definitely harder but Java should be doable.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Until Java finally supports value types, like .NET, D, Nim, Eiffel and plenty of other GC enabled languages.
- lmm 6y ago
  > If you're talking about using to_owned or clone without reason, then it's fully on the developer. Well, if we could just make developers smarter then everything would be easy, but we can't. It's reasonable to ask whether real-world developers working in Rust end up doing enough extra copying to outweigh the overhead of a JVM-like garbage collector that would let them avoid ever manually copying.

by zelly 6y ago

doteka 6y ago

Interesting, could you elaborate on this software and what it does? At work, we also offer two backends for the same kind of functionality. One is the industry standard Java implementation, one is a homegrown Rust implementation. We find that for this usecase (essentially text processing, string manipulation and statistical algorithms), the rust version is much faster while using less memory. However, it is not as feature-rich.

moonchild 6y ago
Not the OP, but my guess is that rust will do well for the sort of code that would be fast in c anyway: linear operations large, contiguous arrays. For pointer-chasing code, or code with lots of small objects, the little tricks you use in c aren't available (or at least, not as accessible), and the lack of gc and flexibility wrt references harms you.
- rcxdude 6y ago
  Code with lots of small short-lived objects is often by default faster in something like rust, because stack allocation is very efficient (even compared to the bump allocation in a generational GC, which is much more efficient than heap allocation but worse than stack). If you have a lot of objects which can exist on the stack in your program, java will tend to do poorly in comparison. (and in general java will trade off memory for speed: modern GCs can be very efficient in execution time but will use 2x-3x as much memory in return. If you want low memory usage your code is going to run slower).
  - mratsim 6y ago
    Does the borrow checker interfere with memory and object pools implementation? Because if you require heap allocation for many short-lived objects, I expect this would be one of Java strengths unless you use an object pool.
    - steveklabnik 6y ago
      "interfere" is a funny word, but you could do this in Rust. It's not super common, though the related technique of "arenas" can be, depending on domain.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

imtringued 6y ago

I can't reduce JVM memory usage below 100MB. It simply is impossible. Meanwhile with rust I can easily write 20 times more memory efficient applications.

thu2111 6y ago
Try Graal native image. It precompiles all code ahead of time and drops all metadata that you don't explicitly say you need. The results start as fast as a C program would and uses 5-10x less memory. The trade-off is lower runtime performance: hotspot is using that memory to make your app run faster at peak.

the_mitsuhiko 6y ago

I will agree that Rust programs can be surprisingly slow. That said, in most cases I have experienced this it came down to very simple to detect situations that are usually resolved by enclosing some large things in smart pointers. I consider this a plus because that's a pretty simple change.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

> Rust programmers tend to do all kinds of little hacks here and there to make the borrow checker happy. It can add up. The borrow checker is perfectly happy when you copy everything. Do you mind sharing an example? If you're talking about using to_owned or clone without reason, then it's fully on the developer. Some more pitfalls to avodi: https://llogiq.github.io/2017/06/01/perf-pitfalls.html https://llogiq.github.io/2017/06/01/perf-pitfalls.html What you say definitely doesn't match my experience. I would say Java code and Rust code are roughly in the same order of processing speed but the JVM "wastes" some memory. You also have garbage collection complicating performance in some scenarios. I'm pretty sure you can get in the same processing speed ballpark with careful programming in both languages. Outperforming C++ is definitely harder but Java should be doable.

pjmlp 6y ago
Until Java finally supports value types, like .NET, D, Nim, Eiffel and plenty of other GC enabled languages.
lmm 6y ago
> If you're talking about using to_owned or clone without reason, then it's fully on the developer. Well, if we could just make developers smarter then everything would be easy, but we can't. It's reasonable to ask whether real-world developers working in Rust end up doing enough extra copying to outweigh the overhead of a JVM-like garbage collector that would let them avoid ever manually copying.