From: Robert Dober Date: 2006-07-28T19:50:06+09:00 Subject: Re: For performance, write it in C ------=_Part_3143_12163121.1154083803048 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 7/27/06, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > > Hal Fulton wrote: > > Isaac Gouy wrote: > > > > > > That sounds wrong to me - I hear positive comments about Java > > > performance for long-running programs, not for programs that run in > > > under a second. > > > > > > > JIT is the key to a lot of that. Performance depends greatly on > > the compiler, the JVM, the algorithm, etc. > > > I won a bet once from a friend. We wrote comparable programs in > > Java and C++ (some arbitrary math in a loop running a bazillion > > times). > > > > With defaults on both compiles, the Java was actually *faster* > > than the C++. Even I didn't expect that. But as I said, this > > sort of thing is highly dependent on many different factors. > > > > Yes I believe that on some theoretic base under some circumstances JIT will outclass a static compiler simply because it is able to optimize using Runtime Information. I would be surprised however, to have consistent better performance in JIT than in precompiled code in the near future - (ha near future can be define= d to my needs, so I am never wrong ;) - let's say 0.01 ky. Would you mind sharing these examples, maybe offlist I suggest as we are loosing the red gem here. Thx a lot in advance Robert > Hal > > Sometimes when we look at different workloads we can see the > performance crossover when relatively slow startup is overcome, code > JIT'd and adaptive optimisation kicks in > > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/fulldata.php?test=3Dnbody&p1=3Djava= -0&p2=3Dgcc-0&p3=3Dclean-0&p4=3Djava-0 > > > --=20 Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue. - Albert Einstein ------=_Part_3143_12163121.1154083803048--