[computer-go] Java hounds salivate over this:

[Nick Apperson]

>I think Java approaches the speed of C only in a few benchmarks.  I
>think if you had a competition by super-experts in any language to write
>a very specific program, you would find that the Java program couldn't
>approach the C program in speed.

>For instance I would like someone to take Lukasz Lew's code base and
>come close to it's performance in Java.   I would be really surprised if
>you could get half the speed in this case.

I couldn't agree more with what you say here.  If any of you really think
that Java can be as fast as C or C++, then prove it.  I have yet to be even
moderately convinced.  I wouldn't mind seeing it.  I would still probably
use C++ for most of my own work because I prefer its rich feature set, but
it could save me some time when I am able to subcontract out part of a
performance critical job to a dime-a-dozen java programmer.



On 6/15/07, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> I think D keeps improving.  The gcc version is slower anyway, so I
> haven't bothered with it but my understanding is that they have made a
> lot of optimizations since we last discussed the performance of D on
> this group.  Of course I haven't tested it out in a while.
>
> I would use D exclusively for performance programming if it could get
> pretty close to C in speed.   In principle the author of D claims it's
> has more potential than C does for optimizations.
>
> Are you using D now?
>
>
> - Don
>
>
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:45 -0400, Jason House wrote:
> > On 6/15/07, Phil G <go at thinkedge.com> wrote:
> >         JIT didn't solve everything - the managed memory management in
> >         Java (and C#) has overheard which JIT can not always optimized
> >         away, for example.
> >
> >
> > The D programming language website argues in favor of garbage
> > collection... Even claiming that it could be faster than manual memory
> > allocation/deallocation. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/garbage.html
> >
> >
> > <venting>
> > I'm not yet sold on all the ideas... especially since D's GC crashes
> > when using the port to gcc.  Arguments like "you don't have to debug
> > memory management code" (like on the website) are nice points, but
> > it's far more frustrating when the standard GC doesn't work.
> > </venting>
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go at computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20070615/7b3028ba/attachment.htm