# Taking TTFX seriously: Can we make common packages faster to load and use

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/taking-ttfx-seriously-can-we-make-common-packages-faster-to-load-and-use/74949>\
**Category:** Performance\
**Tags:** ttfp\
**Created:** [January 20, 2022, 5:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/taking-ttfx-seriously-can-we-make-common-packages-faster-to-load-and-use/74949 "2022-01-20T17:16:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Krastanov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/krastanov/32/6817_2.png) [@Krastanov](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Krastanov)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2022, 7:49pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/taking-ttfx-seriously-can-we-make-common-packages-faster-to-load-and-use/74949/10 "2022-01-21T19:49:35Z")

</div>

If I could use this to share my own “I tried but the results were bad / made no sense” story: I tried to add `let` block with a “typical code use” statement (and **nothing else** , no change to the rest of the library), and that made the runtime (not compiletime) of the library worse: [Removing precompilation leads to lower allocations!?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/removing-precompilation-leads-to-lower-allocations/73621) Some methods started to allocate instead of being allocation free (again, without changing anything in their source code).

I thought that should not be possible, and I still can not figure out what is so special about this fairly boring simulation code, that led to such weird behavior.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/taking-ttfx-seriously-can-we-make-common-packages-faster-to-load-and-use/74949)._