3 ms·
Yup - this would do the job faster and better. Task task = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); tasks.Add(task);
by dodyg 3y ago
Yup - this would do the job faster and better.
Task task = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
tasks.Add(task);
- JB_Dev 3y agoI was sufficiently curious and just went and tested this using BenchmarkDotNet. The example code is here (https://github.com/J-Bax/CSharpBenchmarkExamples https://github.com/J-Bax/CSharpBenchmarkExamples). The difference is quite significant. (1) With the authors code (using Task.Run), I get ~428MB of allocations. (2) Dropping the unnecessary Task.Run(...), I get ~183MB of allocations. (3) Doing (2) and waiting N times on the same delay, I get ~39MB of allocations. This was all using .NET 6 too. .NET 7 or the 8 preview might be even better since they are working hard on performance in recent releases. So even looking at just (2), that puts .NET on par with the rust library.