3 ms·
Important to note that this is a modality, not the primary way to execute crystal code in production, which remains building a binary executable. This saves com
by iostream24 4y ago
Important to note that this is a modality, not the primary way to execute crystal code in production, which remains building a binary executable.
This saves compilation time while developing at the expense of performance.
The runtime performance of crystal executables are great, of course, comparable with C or C++ in the given web development domain, of course, where the Boehm GC isn’t a problem, given the request response cycle and the standard lib http and socket objects, etc
- Zababa 4y ago> The runtime performance of crystal executables are great, of course, comparable with C or C++ in the given web development domain I don't think that's true. Crystal seems to be more in the ballpark of Go or Java:https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/ https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/
- vanviegen 4y agoIsn't that the same ballpark?
- suby 4y agoIt's close but you do pay a performance cost for garbage collection (with Go, Java, and Crystal all being garbage collected). There are some benchmarks at the following link, but note that many of the examples are hyper-optimized so you should look at the implementations to make sure the results aren't misleading. As an example though if you don't want to click, the nbody benchmark clocks the slowest C++ program at 387ms compared to Crystal at 580ms https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/crystal-vs-cpp https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/crystal-v...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vegai_ 4y agoThat's an incredible achievement for Crystal given how high-level that language is. But you're right technically of course.