"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i4nqnk$19f...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> If I have to use a program written in Language-X for awhile before it >> stops being slow, then I'm going to feel perfectly justified in calling >> Language-X a slow language. > > Also consider that Java really doesn't give you much to work with if you > want to take hand-tuning past a certain point. >
Absolutely. In fact, that's why I take issue with all those old Java benchmarks that would compare Java code to *equivalent* C/C++ code (allegedly for the sake of a fair apples-to-apples): The C/C++ code can be further optimized, the Java can't. With .NET, you maybe can optimize to a certain extent, just because at least it *allows* pointers (although the type system gets in the way a lot - I once tried to convert a buffer to a struct in C# (think "idiomatic-C way to load a BMP-header"), and I spent hours trying to figure out how to do it without any copying/allocation/runtime-reflection before finally concluding "If it's possible, I no longer care how". In C/C++/D, I can do it with just a simple cast).