Well, none of Sun's implementations are concurrent -- they all force the application to stop for a time. They're not generally well- designed for LARGE applications (eg, a fast 8-way running a heavy transaction system), or anything with really stringent response time requirements. The IBM iSeries Java implementation ran rings around Sun's, and the newer IBM portable Java implementation runs rings around the iSeries implementation.
One of the problems with Sun's GC scheme is the vast number of parameters -- no one understands them, or how to set them for a given set of circumstances (especially if those circumstances vary dynamically). On Aug 2, 9:57 pm, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: > OT, but I'll bite. > > What do you consider a really good GC setup? > > Sun's GC is good enough that I would hesitate to make blanket > statements that it is better than X or worse than X. (Though I will > say that the newer Sun GC implementations are clearly better than the > older ones). There are a lot of different parameters to evaluate a GC > by -- and not just CPU overhead. > > I don't ask in order to dispute your choice, BTW -- just to understand > what you're considering a good GC and why -- and perhaps learn of a > really good GC I don't know about! > > (It's been a while, but I've implemented, debugged, and maintained a > number of GCs over the years, and worked with many of the true > pioneers in the field of GC. So you can see why I'm curious). > > On Aug 2, 12:53 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > "(don't get me started on GC based languages)" > > > I know it's off-topic, but I have to say something. Having done large > > applications in both I much prefer GCed languages (provided the GC is > > well implemented). More robust and less overhead (yes, faster), with > > fewer ways for the programmer to shoot himself in the foot. > > (Unfortunately, Sun's GC implementations are only mediocre, so it's > > possible you've never seen a really good GC setup.) > > > On Aug 1, 2:33 pm, RichardC <richard.crit...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > My background is C and C++ ... 25 years and no longer counting :) > > > > So I had some ingrained expectations when I started learning Java; > > > amongst them was the expectation that the Java language would support > > > conditional compliation. > > > > I have had to learn to live without conditional compliation. The only > > > area where I really miss having a lanugage constuct like "#ifdef" is > > > when I need to remove instrumentation and/or debugging code. I now > > > write less of this type of code and try to remember to mark what I do > > > wite with a "remove me" comment, which gets picked up by the Eclipse > > > to-do list. I then remove it during my pre-QA code review. > > > > I have yet to feel the need to use conditional compilation to deal > > > with the often quoted "platform fragmentation" as the differences in > > > the platforms mostly impacts the amout of time I spend testing and I > > > have yet to write ANY code that differs by supported hardware. Using > > > the resource qualifiers has been all I have needed to do so far. > > > > I still don't like some aspects of the Java language (don't get me > > > started on GC based languages) but Android is much more than just a > > > language and writing off a complete platform for one feature you > > > consider missing is very strange position to take. > > > > On Jul 31, 11:09 pm, sblantipodi <perini.dav...@dpsoftware.org> wrote: > > > > > I'm sorry for my rude and really not too much kind speaking, > > > > but I can't belive that android doesn't support preprocessor. > > > > > I can't think on mobile programming without preprocessor, too many > > > > different configurations, > > > > think only to LVL and android market and preprocessor could be > > > > useful... > > > > Ok we can live without it, but codes becomes really unelegant... > > > > Sincerely I really don't like the non preprocessor way but > > > > unfortunantly, > > > > masses told that android is good and I need to develop on it :) > > > > > On Jul 31, 10:58 pm, TreKing <treking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:00 PM, sblantipodi > > > > > <perini.dav...@dpsoftware.org>wrote: > > > > > > > How can you develop on a mobile without preprocessing? > > > > > > Quite easily, actually. > > > > > > > Sure android is really good for fart app, but what else? > > > > > > Is this is a serious question? Have you browsed through the Android > > > > > Market > > > > > (as painful as that is)? There's a lot more out there than "fart > > > > > apps". > > > > > > > I don't want to troll but I really can't understand why I heard > > > > > > many developers saying "viva android" when google released the > > > > > > first buggy > > > > > > SDK. > > > > > > Probably simply because it's an alternative to iPhone. > > > > > > Now, someone with your experience developing for so many devices can > > > > > surely > > > > > adapt to not having a preprocessor. It's good for many things but > > > > > definitely > > > > > not a necessity and will certainly not cripple you when making an > > > > > Android > > > > > App. > > > > > > If you're personally that attached to having a preprocessor, no one is > > > > > forcing you to develop on Android. > > > > > > Good luck. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > TreKing <http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking> - Chicago > > > > > transit tracking app for Android-powered devices -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
