[cnnsucks]

>> Java is showing quite impressive numbers!

359% more RAM isn't very impressive. Even less so when one considers the 20+ years of effort spent to achieve it.

You know what impresses me? A 22 month old language besting everything else while guaranteeing no segfaults or NPEs at compile time. That's impressive.

[Etzos]

Not that I don't disagree with the general idea of this post, but it's worth pointing out that while Rust is fairly young based on the 1.0 release date, there was a large amount of time prior to that where the language underwent a number of changes.

It's also worth remembering that this is just a game, and as such it's somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Java's RAM usage may not be impressive compared to C, but that doesn't make the results overall any less impressive, especially knowing what it was like before those 20+ years of effort.

I don't see a reason that both Rust and Java's results can't be impressive in their own right. Java's numbers are (for the most part) impressive compared to C and Rust's numbers are also impressive compared to C, just in a different way.

[cnnsucks]

>> while Rust is fairly young based on the 1.0 release date, there was a large amount of time prior to that where the language underwent a number of changes.

Both Rust and Java had similar intervals between start of development and 1.0 release, which is what I carefully referenced my claims to. The comparison is fair; deliberately conservative actually given Java 1.0 in 1995 (now 22 years ago.)

>> I don't see a reason that both Rust and Java's results can't be impressive in their own right.

The state of the art has moved on. There was a time when Java pulling to within 50-ish percent of a 45 year old programming language was impressive; back around 2005 or so. It's old hat now and there is little evidence the gap is going to close much further.