I think the perf jump from Ruby to Rust is much greater than .NET Core to Rust. Not much will change in .NET land for the foreseeable future. I see this migration happening from Ruby and others so it is not surprising from that aspect.
Also - what he is talking about was true for well over a year. It is just that a lot of day-to-day gaps between prompt and output were closed in the meantime. In a sense, Ruby on Rails/37 Signals is a late adopter.
> I think the perf jump from Ruby to Rust is much greater than .NET Core to Rust
This has not been true for me. If you are constrained by memory, you will still come out better using Rust, even if you use C# with AOT. We use .NET 10 at work and see 1/5th of the memory being used by a ported Rust service. Your mileage may vary.
With RAM prices where they are, I'm expecting to see a lot more of this in the next year.
We've been transitioning in-memory caching for web apps to tiered or on-nvme caching. It's an order of magnitude slower, but no one really noticed.
FLeXMurphy · · focus · HN ↗
Also - what he is talking about was true for well over a year. It is just that a lot of day-to-day gaps between prompt and output were closed in the meantime. In a sense, Ruby on Rails/37 Signals is a late adopter.
metaltyphoon · · focus · HN ↗
This has not been true for me. If you are constrained by memory, you will still come out better using Rust, even if you use C# with AOT. We use .NET 10 at work and see 1/5th of the memory being used by a ported Rust service. Your mileage may vary.
porker · · focus · HN ↗
We've been transitioning in-memory caching for web apps to tiered or on-nvme caching. It's an order of magnitude slower, but no one really noticed.