4 ms·
I'm curious why that is. I've spent a bit of time benchmarking startup for plain old executables, and .NET does OK there (even without AOT compilation). Not sur
by ripley12 5y ago
I'm curious why that is. I've spent a bit of time benchmarking startup for plain old executables, and .NET does OK there (even without AOT compilation). Not sure what would make it slower than other languages on Lambda. https://twitter.com/reillywood/status/1459332721205936128 https://twitter.com/reillywood/status/1459332721205936128
- tyingq 5y agoThere's this post: https://blog.thundra.io/solving-dotnet-lambda-cold-start-part-1 https://blog.thundra.io/solving-dotnet-lambda-cold-start-par... It suggests a few things, including: "one of the most intensive tasks at startup is jitting your machine agnostic .NET assemblies into machine specific"
- ripley12 5y agoAh, I think I see what's going on. It's trivial to precompile .NET code with ReadyToRun today, but the Thundra post was written before that was possible. And it looks like the post above forgot to enable ReadyToRun (see the comments - not sure why it wouldn't be on by default). That said, in everyday console apps on modern hardware the JIT is super quick at startup. I guess Lambdas are running in more constrained environments...