Toby DiPasquale on 21 Nov 2007 22:13:33 -0000 |
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 02:05:48PM -0500, Matthew Rosewarne wrote: > Actually, to port a C++ (Qt in particular) program to a new platform, the same > amount of work has to be done as a Java program, except for the added > recompilation. Wow, Qt must be magical indeed. I guess that's why so many developers aren't using it... especially on mobile phones, where it could really help. Gimme a break. > Java has advanced considerably since its early days. The code that that VM > generates is at least as good as that of GCC. The overhead comes not from > running that compiled code, but from the fact that it has to be compiled at > runtime. It's easy to make a benchmark that shows Java to be as fast as C, > so long as you ignore the additional resources it takes to JIT compile. It's > easy to demonstrate simply by comparing the difference in resource use > between a Java program compiled to machine code with GCJ and the same Java > program JIT compiled with GIJ. The two methods use the same compiler, but > since the former is pre-compiled, the real-world resource & speed benefits > are significant. Apparently you weren't listening: the difference is slight even with the JIT overhead. Got it? Its not a "significant" difference anymore. This is why C++ loses: way more complex and shitty with just a teensy bit of extra performance in a few domains. -- Toby DiPasquale ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|