> From: wren ng thornton <w...@freegeek.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:30 PM
-snip- > FWIW, that matches my expectations pretty well. Naive/standard Java > performing > slower than Smalltalk; highly tweaked Java using non-standard data types > performing on-par with or somewhat faster than Smalltalk. I have no difficulty believing that if you are talking about a 1996 Java reference implementation and a 1996 Smalltalk JIT VM. I could believe that if you are comparing a naive Java program with a highly tweaked Smalltalk program. > That C is 7x faster is a bit on the high end, but for something like tsort I > could imagine it'd be possible. It's possible because it's possible to write a Java program to be slower than it need be :-) > Do bear in mind that Java doesn't optimize ---that's the JIT's job What are we supposed to make of that? Why write that and not -- Do bear in mind that Smalltalk doesn't optimize that's the JIT's job -- or -- Do bear in mind that C doesn't optimize that's the compiler's job. -snip- > But even still, in my experience of using Smalltalk, the standard data > structures are much better done and so they will be on-par with what you'd > get from hand-tuning for Java. I've spent a lot of time trying to get decent > performance out of Java, not so much with Smalltalk; but the performance with > Smalltalk was sufficient that it wasn't needed so badly. Do you have a specific example that you can share? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe