Oops, forgot to reply-to-all. This was a minor clarification on Wren's behalf (he can correct me if I'm wrong). But I agree with Bryan that it's time for the thread to die:
> > 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. > I believe this was referring to the fact that javac isn't an aggressive optimizing compiler on the way from source to bytecode, i.e. it's the bytecode->asm leg where the optimization effort is focused. As an outsider to things Java that's something I've had trouble understanding, actually. It doesn't seem like an either-or choice to me... -Ryan On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Isaac Gouy <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: wren ng thornton <[email protected]> > > > 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 > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
