Re: Help me!! Why java is so popular
raddog58c wrote:
Or it could cover the gap 200%.
You are basically proving that Java is not efficient by assuming so.
Meaning you proved nothing.
I wasn't trying to prove anything. Common sense says if you have to
convert from one format to another before you begin executing, you
have an extra step and obviously all things being equal you are not as
efficient, period, end of sentence.
True.
But utterly irrelevant to the part of your post I commented on:
#The fact the conversion is done at run time and would have to be done
#every time the code is run (unless it's cached) puts it at a
#disadvantage out of the gate. The late binding to environment could
#help close the gap,
Where you claimed that the benefit from late binding to
environment <= the loss from having to JIT compile overhead.
Converted code that's more efficient you could make up for the
conversion - it would depend on the problem space, run duration, and
how well/badly each program were written. The converted code would
need to be more efficient to have a chance to make up for the extra
step. If it were equal to or less efficient, you will not make up the
gap.
That's not a proof -- it's an observation of reality, right?
A completely irrelevant observation in connection with your claim
quoted above.
There's a beauty in interpreted languages, but instruction-level
efficiency is a trade off you make for the functionality and late-
binding paradigm that interpretation provides. I give the JVM
architects a lot of credit, as under the right circumstances they
glean a lot of efficiency out of Java byte code -- but on balance the
Java code I've worked with in batch, GUI, and web server applications
has not been impressive from a speed standpoint. Functionality wise
it's great, however, so that's the emphasis upon which one should
focus with respect to interp. languages, IMHO.
So far I do not think you have impressed many with your understanding
of Java performance.
Arne