Rust is Not so Hairy

#1

Post by nevi-me » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

Rust is Not so Hairy
nevi.me

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#2

Post by nevi-me » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

A few people asked me about my experiences with Rust after I mentioned seeing significant performance improvements.

I wrote a blog post about it and open sourced both the Java and Rust code.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#3

Post by botverse » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

nevi-me wrote: post #2

A few people asked me about my experiences with Rust after I mentioned seeing significant performance improvements. I wrote a blog post about it and open sourced both the Java and Rust code.

Nice write up

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#4

Post by jokoon » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

Good performance is not surprising, it's a statically compiled language.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#5

Post by choeger » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:26 AM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #4

Good performance is not surprising, it's a statically compiled language.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#6

Post by Scarbutt » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:31 AM UTC

choeger wrote: post #5

jokoon wrote: post #4

Good performance is not surprising, it's a statically compiled language.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Java is very fast too ;)

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#7

Post by diroussel » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:36 AM UTC

choeger wrote: post #5

jokoon wrote: post #4

Good performance is not surprising, it's a statically compiled language.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Java is not statically compiles to machine code. It’s statically compiles to byte code which is hen interpreted or dynamically compiles to machine code.

So to way java is statically compiles is not quite correct in my opinion.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#8

Post by sanxiyn » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:57 AM UTC

Scarbutt wrote: post #6

choeger wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Java is very fast too ;)

Yup, Java is fast, but OP shared that Rust used 7 MB to do the same thing for which Java used 240 MB.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#9

Post by pjmlp » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:57 AM UTC

choeger wrote: post #5

jokoon wrote: post #4

Good performance is not surprising, it's a statically compiled language.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Not really, Java always had AOT compilers to native code, they just happened to be commercial and we all know how modern developers love to pay for their tools.

Re: Rust is Not so Hairy

#10

Post by pjmlp » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 6:59 AM UTC

diroussel wrote: post #7

choeger wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also holds for Java ;). The difference is in the targeted execution model.

Java is not statically compiles to machine code. It’s statically compiles to byte code which is hen interpreted or dynamically compiles to machine code. So to way java is statically compiles is not quite correct in my opinion.

If you are talking about free Java compilers that is correct.

Most commercial compilers, specially those for embedded markets always had AOT native code as deployment option.

But now the bad Oracle is finally making the AOT compiler research they got from Sun Labs available for free.