3 ms·
You are missing clojure start time which for me is over 1.5 seconds on top of the jvm start time.
by andrewchambers 12y ago
You are missing clojure start time which for me is over 1.5 seconds on top of the jvm start time.
- masklinn 12y agoI'm not missing anything, I'm saying the statement > And the JVM has the slowest startup time of any runtime I've ever encountered. looks completely correct in and of itself. Clojure's startup time can be blamed for making things worse (by a fairly significant bit), but the JVM is already, without Clojure, the slowest-starting runtime I have on my machine. And that's what pjmlp objected to.
- pjmlp 12y agoI get 130ms on Windows 8.1, Core Duo 2.53 GHz with jdk1.8.0_40. And 120ms If I disable the JIT. With a normal hard disk. Maybe it does take a few ms more than Lua or Python, but hardly anything significant.
- masklinn 12y ago> Maybe it does take a few ms more than Lua or Python Yeah, like 3 to 6 times longer. > but hardly anything significant. Well if 6x is not significant, surely Clojure's second start time is hardly significant.
- pjmlp 12y agoI don't want to install Lua or Python just to test how long an Hello World takes, hence my "maybe". Even if I am wrong, 6x here means 130ms, whereas Clojure time is in the order of seconds. Big enough to warrant a few entries on their roadmap. http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/%27Lean%27+Runtime http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/%27Lean%27+Runtime http://nicholaskariniemi.github.io/2014/02/25/clojure-bootstrapping.html http://nicholaskariniemi.github.io/2014/02/25/clojure-bootst...