People who never had to write on a TRS-80 with 16K of memory NEVER had to
learn how to cram EVERY last iota of efficiency into their code.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Ryan Ware |
| | <RWare@INTERPLAST|
| | IC.com> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 02/20/2003 09:16 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: URGENT! really low performance. A related question...
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I think some of the performance strikes against java is that a lot of
schools have standardized on it as their main teaching language with very
little emphasis on data structures and lower level languages. Hence the
students don't grasp how computers work so they write inefficient code. I
think Moore's law in some ways propogated this, sadly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: URGENT! really low performance. A related question...
>
>
> > One cannot make such blanket statements. JAVA is a language, not a
> > workload. Yes it does have characteristics that cause it
> to have long
> path
> > lengths. However, it also has characteristics that trash caches,
> > particularly if the programmer takes OO programming seriously.
>
> Very true, although observation indicates that there are a
> lot of really
> lazy programmers writing in Java, or ones that are simply
> ignorant of the
> effects of certain programming practices. There are also a lot of
> programmers that use the absolutely horrific crap that comes
> out of most of
> the integrated development environments these days without
> ever looking at
> the impact of the code on the environment.
>
> Forced use of 'lint' had it's moments -- at least it
> complained about the
> egregiously stupid stuff.
>
> >Java just happens to be
> > less efficient on all fronts than earlier languages, but
> then Fortran is
> > less efficient than assembler.
>
> Interesting side note: Fortran is around 50 years old (+/- a
> few). It's
> gotten more intensive study by the compiler optimization
> wonks than any
> other language. Talk about geriatric research! 8-)
>
> -- db
>
