Suitability (of Java)

Tushar Teredesai tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Apr 4 23:54:04 PDT 2004


Don Smith wrote:

> That's pretty cool. Thanks. And the JIT seems optimize the code as well.

Yep, that is why I asked if you quoted based on your perception or from 
some benchmarks. Most of the folks have the perception that since Java 
is interpreted, it has to be slower than C++.

> How efficient is the compiler? That's a pretty small program and it 
> looks like it took about .2 seconds to compile.

Probably the same time as the C++ compiler, may be faster. Did not time it.

> Did you try the Allocate one also? On my system the Java version took 
> 40 times longer. Of course that's a slightly unfair test since it 
> picks on the garbage collector. And if you have 4GB of physical memory 
> you might not see a difference unless you adjust the iteration counter 
> upwards.

Nope didn't try it. Coz these small tests are not very useful. That is 
why I inquired about links to official benchmarks. I used to have 
bookmarks to some benchmarks but not anymore.

> Now if they would just add delete to Java...

Not being a C++ person, I have no idea what that means :)

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
   http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
   http://www.geocities.com/tushar/




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list