Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF

alexc@world.std.com (Alex Colvin)
4 Nov 2001 23:59:40 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
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: alexc@world.std.com (Alex Colvin)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 4 Nov 2001 23:59:40 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: 01-08-091 01-09-064 01-09-075 01-10-051 01-10-075 01-10-082 01-10-143
Keywords: Java, performance
Posted-Date: 04 Nov 2001 23:59:40 EST

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


I think it was Mike O'Dell who said
I never worry about a factor of two in performance.
Unfortunately, neither do ten of my friends.
--
mac the naïf

Post a followup to this message

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