How Rust Is Tilde’s Competitive Advantage [pdf]

Re:How Rust Is Tilde’s Competitive Advantage [pdf] by rsynnott on Tuesday February 06, 2018 @02:21PM (#16318714)

Almost certainly either bad design (their Java app had a way bigger working set than their Rust one), or bad tuning (they set the heap needlessly large). Automatic memory management _does_ require more memory for reasonable performance, but you'd be talking about 2x or 3x the working set. Not 100x. Java objects will likely end up a little larger than Rust ones, but again not enough to make up the 100x difference.

Having a way-too-big heap is usually actively undesirable; you'll get fewer pauses, but much longer ones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Rust Is Tilde’s Competitive Advantage [pdf] by yazaddaruvala on Tuesday February 06, 2018 @10:18PM (#16322003)

> or bad tuning (they set the heap needlessly large)

The claim "for equivalent Java code", might be slightly exaggerated, but looking at the claim as a whole: "Rust is Tilde's Competitive Advantage", "bad tuning" is part of the point.

"bad tuning" usually means "no tuning". Which means they spent the time they could have been tuning and used it to build features instead, or optimize their code instead.

From that perspective I wouldn't use "bad tuning" as an argument for continuing to use Java.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Rust Is Tilde’s Competitive Advantage [pdf] by rsynnott on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @07:42AM (#16324005)

Oh, yeah, it's certainly a problem. However, they could almost certainly have done a lot better with Java than they'd been doing, if they wanted to.

[ Parent | on HN ]