undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandrewchambers11y ago0 comments

You are missing clojure start time which for me is over 1.5 seconds on top of the jvm start time.

0 comments

I'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.

pjmlp11y ago

I 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.

masklinn11y 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

masklinn11y ago

I'm not missing anything, I'm saying the statement

> And the JVM has the slowest startup time of any runtime I've ever encountered.

pjmlp11y ago

I 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.

masklinn11y 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse