[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: MARS rise & set times



At 05:49 AM 2/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>Phil Karn wrote:
>
>>By the way, on OS X at least Mars24 burns an awful lot of CPU time for 
>>what it does, about 34% of a 2 GHz G5. Probably because it's written in 
>>Java, a remarkably inefficient language.
>
>Tsk,tsk,tsk. Modern Java runtimes (the only kind there are on OSX) 
>often  compare very favorably with handcoded C for many operations, apples 
>to apples.
>
>See http://kano.net/javabench/index (warning: rude page heading)

Dear friends,

Having taken a quick look at the source, it is clear that these
benchmarks do not measure C++ versus Java language performance. The
results reflect the performance of specific functions of
certain library routines. The libraries are of course compiler
dependent and they do not even have to be written in Java or C++
to work.

Speed was never the reason for Java and the reality is that the
Java language is much slower than C++. It is easy to understand
why since they have similar syntax but Java is interpreted
(even "compiled" Java.) Phil gets the cigar on this one!

C/C++ is fast enough to run on a DSP and has been used in
commercial DSP products but I cannot even imagine running
Java on a DSP.

Additionally, the non-deterministic run-time behavior of Java
makes it problematic if response time is a critical factor.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Java and I have used it in
several commercial products over the years where it's strengths
made it appropriate but it is not in any way "faster" than C++.

73,
Tony AA2TX


----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home