From: "Marcin Mielżyński" <lopexx@...>
Date: 2006-02-24T08:08:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Huge performance gap

Alexis Reigel wrote:
> Stephen Waits wrote:
>> E. Saynatkari wrote:
>>
>>> Post the code somewhere, there might be room for improvement
>>> in the algorithm though it will still be considerably slower.
>>
>> It looks, to me, like he attached his code to the OP.
>>
>> Regardless, it doesn't matter.  Algorithmic improvements may help both
>> the C++ and Ruby versions - but it's not going to change the fact that
>> one is a relatively low-level language, compiled to native machine code,
>> and the other is an interpreted dynamic language.  To compare them is
>> either ridiculous, or more likely in this case, simply ignorant.
>>
>> --Steve
>>
> Why should that be ridiculous or ignorant?
> I stated that I was aware of the differences between interpreted and
> compiled languages. But that does not change the fact that I believe
> that this does not explain the performance gap. An execution time of
> 27.65 seconds against 0.33 seconds is not just nothing is it? It's a
> factor of over 80 times. Besides, I implemented the same code in java
> too, which isn't native code as well and runs in a virtual machine too,
> and it executed in about the same time as c++.
> 
> 

Which version of java did you use ? Since 1.4 there is a JIT compiler so 
java _IS_ compiled into native code unless you disable it explicitly.

lopex