From: Isak Hansen <isak.hansen@...>
Date: 2006-07-28T20:15:10+09:00
Subject: Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java


Peter Hickman wrote:

*snip*

> Now the Java version. I will be honest here, I might be paid to program
> in Java but it hasn't been my language of choice since around 1992. I
> find it gets in my way and today it found yet another way to do it.

*snip*

> In the interest of fairness I also looked at the timings of just the
> execution of the C and Java version so that the performance of the
> compilers were not impacting the times. So here is the C and Java
> versions without the precomuting phase and without the compiling.
>
> [Latin]$ time ./latin > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> real    0m1.961s
> user    0m1.680s
> sys     0m0.051s
>
> [Latin]$ time java Latin > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> real    0m15.483s
> user    0m9.641s
> sys     0m4.280s
>
> There you have it, C is still faster by an order of magnitude.
> Performance is yours for the asking, but it comes at a price - you have
> to write it in C. Ease of development also comes at a price, you don't
> get the same performance as C. Of course if you have a fear of C this
> does show that you can go some of the way by converting to Java, if that
> is fast enough for you then well and good but know this, C is faster.

When people want 'speed' they care about how fast the code runs, not
JVM startup time..

Your benchmarks are utterly irrelevant, sorry.


Isak