From: Sean Russell Date: 2001-05-30T01:08:25+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:15942] Re: java based interpreter and regexes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Je Dimancxo 27 Majo 2001 15:40, vi skribis: > 1.4 should be at least as fast as 1.3, it might include some debug > code as it's still a beta. I've heard reports both that 1.4 is > significantly faster and slower than the 1.3.1 production release. Have you tried running the benchmark with Java 1.3 on your machine? > However, if the RubyWin version is faster than the GCC version, this Oh, I thought the RubyWin version was GCC, and that you had been using Ruby compiled with CygWin. Again, I know almost nothing about Windows; I've never used it. > >Yes, and no. Swing is comparatively slow, no matter what you do. > > But this isn't a problem of the Java VM but of the Swing and AWT > architecture. Erich Gamma (of Pattern fame) used to give talks about I'd argue that this is Java's problem, since Swing is the defacto GUI for Java, and the *apparant* speed of Swing applications is what is important for end-user applications. This is what I was talking about when I said that the slow "speed" of Java is what has hindered its acceptance as a GUI application development platform. Very few applications use AWT because of its limitations, even given its better performance. Without a speedy, powerful GUI, Java is relegated to back-room server applications. This is, incidentally, also a stumbling point for Ruby, IMO. Tk is orthoganal to AWT in my mind; Tk may not be hindering Ruby because it is slow, but it is a fairly unattractive toolkit. A better binding is needed. I started to work on a wxWindows API for Ruby, but I don't know how much time I'll be able to invest in it. > The main reason is the way AWT interacts with the host os. Sun is > slowly fixing this problem, but the problem is the event queue and how > damage events are propagated. The main reason for what? The speed issue in Swing? Or the limited capabilities of AWT? > > of comparing apples to apples (OO to OO), but I'm still confused about > > your results which indicated that interpreted OO code is faster than > > native functional code. > > Java isn't interpreted. Actually, it is. This is the nature of P-code. JIT does allow compilation to native code, but without JIT, Java is interpreted, albeit optimized in pseudo-native code. Maybe you'd feel better calling it "translation", or "code-morphing"? I don't see much difference. === SER Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|Java|Ruby|Aikido|Dirigibles|GPG === http://www.germane-software.com/~ser jabber.com:ser ICQ:83578737 "Man is still the best computer that we can put aboard a spacecraft -- and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." - Wernher von Braun -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7E8lTP0KxygnleI8RAhA9AJ9wER5lqjRr0gTEU1xI1l8Z8BzbWACgwMao w8xLyIUJJwDzEU2rWMhmaCw= =fmyM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----