JIT compilation requires additional CPU and memory resources at run-time, which AOT compilation can avoid. This also means that for a native executable, the compilation work only needs to be done once at build-time and not per process.
back
2 comments
This is the first time I see someone bring up extra cpu and memory usage as a downside of JIT. It might matter in the embedded world but it's Java we're talking about so the cost is minuscule compared to what you're getting for it.
You’re not wrong, but it is funny how we got here from Gosling’s Oak addressing set top boxes.
The thing was built to address the burgeoning embedded w/ a little horsepower market with its variety of hardware and OSes.
Now it runs Enterprise server software… and Minecraft.
Well, it does make sense - a controlled runtime failure is much better than a segfault, or worse, a silent failure corrupting heap. Pair it with decent performance even back than, increased developer productivity and the best observability tools, which is again helped by the VM-semantics.
Those are usually pretty trivial as they are judiciously handed out based on hot code paths by the JVM.
There are certainly pathological cases where it could cause major issues.
AOT suffers from not having runtime information, so anything involving dynamic dispatch (which is REALLY heavily used in java) will be a lot harder to optimize. JITs get to cheat because they know that the `void foo(Collection bar)` method is always or usually called with an `ArrayList`. PGO is the AOT world's answer to this problem, but it generally explodes build times and requires real world usage.
In java land, there's also the option of "AppCDS" which can cut down a large portion of that compilation time between processes.