> Yeah, I think that's great. There will be people that no matter how long I > lecture them, will still say "But...it's in JAVA!" so it's good to have an > alternative that just says "We are fast! We are in C! We use an SQL > database!" so that they will leave us other develops alone.
Complaining about speed and efficiency in Java, and then going out and implementing a C solution around a *SQL database* is madness. I am all-for efficiency, but even in the best of cases, I have always disliked the frequently unnecessary overhead of a separate database, using a database for the datastore would be fantastically inefficient and would make a mockery of any efficiencies introduced elsewhere. The vast majority of those who express bigotry about Java are speaking from a position of ignorance. Sure blackdown's java is crap, we all know this, use IBM's JRE if you care about speed, it is comparable to a C++ implementation. As agl pointed out in a recent conversation, network latency will likely be the bottleneck, not processor speed. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000805/0f295b29/attachment.pgp>
