Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF

Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl>
28 Oct 2001 13:58:10 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[12 earlier articles]
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2001-10-16)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2001-10-16)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-20)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF vbdis@aol.com (2001-10-20)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2001-10-20)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF chase@world.std.com (David Chase) (2001-10-23)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF marcov@toad.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2001-10-28)
Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF alexc@world.std.com (2001-11-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Oct 2001 13:58:10 -0500
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
References: 01-08-091 01-09-064 01-09-075 01-10-051 01-10-075 01-10-082
Keywords: Java, performance
Posted-Date: 28 Oct 2001 13:58:10 EST

Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> I'm involved in the midst of a Java project, and unsatisfactory
> performance is one of the more annoying things. I have been told it's
> more a library problem than anything else, so YMMV. OTOH modern
> processors are fast enough to tolerate slow library design if written
> in C, but not fast enough to tolerate slow library design if written
> in Java, so there's still a point: programmers must expend more effort
> to gain reasonable efficiency.


IMHO It is the cumulative effect of an a bit slower language, slow libraries
and slow application programming.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.