Way to waste at least 20% of the CPU power, lazy programmers. I'll take my CPUs to something that actually uses them efficiently like Folding@home which is optimised as opposed to interpreted or even compiled java bytecode being pushed like molasis through a straw.
Java is often used for scientific computing because of its performance—not in spite of it. Modern REs can even out-perform natively compiled code thanks to runtime optimizations. You probably think Java is slow because of one lousy UI toolkit (called Swing), which hardly anyone uses. In other words, find another trope.
Way to stand by your convictions there AC. Oracles JVM sucks and if the programers were using C++ properly it would run rings aroud java. The only reason java is faster in some of those situations is that it covers over rubbish programming by the developers by enforcing its training wheels.
Way to go, java is faster for people who are slower.
You are wrong. These comparisons are apples to apples, not “proper” versus “improper” code. I found that link from The Java is Faster than C++ and C++ Sucks Unbiased Benchmark [keithlea.com], which satirically demonstrates how people may arrive at flawed perceptions about performance.
Generally speaking, experience teaches engineers that languages are not slow. Algorithms and execution environments are slow. Bad code with good compilers can be fast. Good code with bad compilers can be slow. However, languages do affect developer performance.
In the simplest sense, your belief that any language is slow relative to another is easily refuted. Consider two programs written in language X and Y respectively. Both programs produce identical output for identical input. Suppose we then introduce machine translation that compiles X into Y (or vice versa) before compilation. Or, alternatively, our respective compilers for X and Y produce identical output.
Java, Really (Score:2)
Way to waste at least 20% of the CPU power, lazy programmers. I'll take my CPUs to something that actually uses them efficiently like Folding@home which is optimised as opposed to interpreted or even compiled java bytecode being pushed like molasis through a straw.
You Java haters are idiots. (Score:0)
Java is often used for scientific computing because of its performance—not in spite of it. Modern REs can even out-perform natively compiled code thanks to runtime optimizations. You probably think Java is slow because of one lousy UI toolkit (called Swing), which hardly anyone uses. In other words, find another trope.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to stand by your convictions there AC. Oracles JVM sucks and if the programers were using C++ properly it would run rings aroud java. The only reason java is faster in some of those situations is that it covers over rubbish programming by the developers by enforcing its training wheels.
Way to go, java is faster for people who are slower.
Nope. (Score:1)
Go investigate the relative performance yourself.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ [debian.org]
You are wrong. These comparisons are apples to apples, not “proper” versus “improper” code. I found that link from The Java is Faster than C++ and C++ Sucks Unbiased Benchmark [keithlea.com], which satirically demonstrates how people may arrive at flawed perceptions about performance.
Generally speaking, experience teaches engineers that languages are not slow. Algorithms and execution environments are slow. Bad code with good compilers can be fast. Good code with bad compilers can be slow. However, languages do affect developer performance.
In the simplest sense, your belief that any language is slow relative to another is easily refuted. Consider two programs written in language X and Y respectively. Both programs produce identical output for identical input. Suppose we then introduce machine translation that compiles X into Y (or vice versa) before compilation. Or, alternatively, our respective compilers for X and Y produce identical output.
See what I did there?