Re: Fastest! Counting words (Mirek Fidler.. continues)
Bo Persson wrote:
Stefan Ram wrote:
"Chris Thomasson" <cristom@comcast.net> writes:
The JVM your using right now was "probably" created with C/C++,
and of course, assembly language.
There actually are several JVMs written in Java.
Some run on another JVM, some are being compiled
to some other language.
So, C/C++ can be used to create a language that performs faster
than itself?
Late compiling can take advantage of its knowledge of the
execution environment and processor. C++ usually is compiled
early (before distribution).
If you need absolutely maximum performance, you will have to check out
the executing environment anyway - C++ or Java. If you end up on a
386, no JIT compiler in the world can compensate for that.
I've seen code on a '386 running a custom interpreted port of HP Business
BASIC run faster then HP's own compiled version did on their HP 9000
mainframe, back in the early 90s. Algorithms trump optimizers every time.
I don't know what language HP's own port was written in, but ours was written
in C and ran on the QNX operating system. QNX was a major factor in the
performance being so good. Intel chips have had some pretty good support for
multitasking since the '286, and the OS took full advantage of it. (You
shoulda seen it fly on a '486 or Pentium - whoo-wah!)
This has been an amusing thread, albeit more than a little silly. I am
convinced, especially since it was kicked off with essentially a challenge to
exceed 700 posts to the thread, that the primary purpose of this thread is to
create Usenet noise.
To which, yes, I just contributed. Please go back now to your pointless
discussion already in progress.
--
Lew