3 ms·

I just looked at the F# vs Java benchmarks and .NET is still faster on most of them just to get a sample on more idiomatic code. The F# codebase doesn't use a l

I just looked at the F# vs Java benchmarks and .NET is still faster on most of them just to get a sample on more idiomatic code. The F# codebase doesn't use a lot of externals looking at the code list https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/fsharpcore-java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Only the PiDigits benchmark uses "extern's"; only because it seems like a lazy port. Everything else is native F# code. It beats Java in all benchmarks expect for the binary-tree one. To see a functional language match or beat benchmark level Java on many cases, at least for me, feels kinda nice. Many other real world benchmarks in house (tech choice evaluations) and third party I've seen JVM vs .NET Core also show .NET usually coming out on top recently. The .NET GC isn't as good as the Java one. But I feel that's because the cost/benefit of improving the CLR's GC is less than Java's so the work is put elsewhere. The language (C#/even F#) generates less garbage in the first place with typical code. Any GC improvements there probably don't have the same bang for buck as in Java where allocations IMO are more frequent in day to day coding.

whizzter 5y ago
There was an article ages ago I read about the rewrite of C#'s Dictionary to the new generic one that went from being reliant on allocations in the older releases (C# 1.0 didn't have generics so iirc it behaved more like Java's) to using a generic struct array. Doing so cut down the number of memory allocations to _3 allocations_ from something like _2 * N allocations_ (N being the number of elements in the map). The improvement in performance was apparently staggering when it came to lessening the GC pressure. (Sadly I couldn't find it with a quick google). https://github.com/microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/mscorlib/system/collections/generic/dictionary.cs https://github.com/microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/msc...
- throw868788 5y ago
  Reified generics avoid a lot of "boxing" that comes with standard Java, and that's only one of many features there that helps. Its just easier to avoid allocations in .NET in general over Java IMO. From recent articles and improvements to the platform the team spend their effort to reduce allocations in the first place equal to trying to improve the GC (e.g. ValueTask over Java/Scala futures, etc)

whizzter 5y ago

There was an article ages ago I read about the rewrite of C#'s Dictionary to the new generic one that went from being reliant on allocations in the older releases (C# 1.0 didn't have generics so iirc it behaved more like Java's) to using a generic struct array. Doing so cut down the number of memory allocations to _3 allocations_ from something like _2 * N allocations_ (N being the number of elements in the map). The improvement in performance was apparently staggering when it came to lessening the GC pressure. (Sadly I couldn't find it with a quick google). https://github.com/microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/mscorlib/system/collections/generic/dictionary.cs https://github.com/microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/msc...

throw868788 5y ago
Reified generics avoid a lot of "boxing" that comes with standard Java, and that's only one of many features there that helps. Its just easier to avoid allocations in .NET in general over Java IMO. From recent articles and improvements to the platform the team spend their effort to reduce allocations in the first place equal to trying to improve the GC (e.g. ValueTask over Java/Scala futures, etc)