> Why would you exclude those in this comparison - they're already (guaranteed to be) installed on your windows targets?
Note that this is a stand-alone build; it doesn't require the runtime to be installed. With that in mind, you're right they should be included, which would increase the build size by 8.3 MB.
> How about linux/Mac targets?
I can't build a Mac target because I don't have a Mac. I just built for a linux-x64 target in WSL, and the resulting binary is 35.0 MB. The Linux build looks like it's packaged the CLR into the main binary instead of keeping them separate, which would account for the greater size.
I did do a benchmark with hyperfine, which gave a 25.5 second build time. However, this is on WSL1 building off and on to an NTFS drive, which has known performance issues.
> I think 20-30MB is quite good - puts it in the ballbark of golang.
I've never used Go, but my understanding is that the Go compiler is very fast but doesn't do as much in the way of optimizations. If that's the case, having a larger and slower binary compared to Rust would be expected before you get to the packaged runtime.
The issue I'm taking here is that doing a trimmed dotnet build is (in this case) giving the same build time as Rust, but is only doing some AoT compilation and dead-code elimination. Rust is already doing that in addition to a whole host of other optimizations.
From a user perspective, this feels like dotnet is giving me a worse end product for the same time taken. Especially given the Rust version wasn't harder to write than the C# version (in fact, due to bad documentation the C# version was harder).
> 2MB+ for rust actually sounds a bit big -that's stripped?
No, that is not stripped, and with the standard release profile.
> Why would you exclude those in this comparison - they're already (guaranteed to be) installed on your windows targets?
Note that this is a stand-alone build; it doesn't require the runtime to be installed. With that in mind, you're right they should be included, which would increase the build size by 8.3 MB.
> How about linux/Mac targets?
I can't build a Mac target because I don't have a Mac. I just built for a linux-x64 target in WSL, and the resulting binary is 35.0 MB. The Linux build looks like it's packaged the CLR into the main binary instead of keeping them separate, which would account for the greater size.
I did do a benchmark with hyperfine, which gave a 25.5 second build time. However, this is on WSL1 building off and on to an NTFS drive, which has known performance issues.
> I think 20-30MB is quite good - puts it in the ballbark of golang.
I've never used Go, but my understanding is that the Go compiler is very fast but doesn't do as much in the way of optimizations. If that's the case, having a larger and slower binary compared to Rust would be expected before you get to the packaged runtime.
The issue I'm taking here is that doing a trimmed dotnet build is (in this case) giving the same build time as Rust, but is only doing some AoT compilation and dead-code elimination. Rust is already doing that in addition to a whole host of other optimizations.
From a user perspective, this feels like dotnet is giving me a worse end product for the same time taken. Especially given the Rust version wasn't harder to write than the C# version (in fact, due to bad documentation the C# version was harder).
> 2MB+ for rust actually sounds a bit big -that's stripped?
No, that is not stripped, and with the standard release profile.