From: Philip Hunt (cabalamat@googlemail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2008 - 22:41:36 MST
2008/11/29 Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>:
> Philip Hunt wrote:
>> 2008/11/29 Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> A good compiled Java might be worth looking into, but
>>> I really find the Java IO libraries a nuisance. Still, Java has LOTS of
>>> libraries, and that might be a sufficient benefit...but it would require
>>> the
>>> speed that can only be obtained with compiled code.
>>
>> If you want to use Java's libraries, you don't have to code in Java,
>> you can code in anything that compiles to the JVM, such as Clojure.
>
> Anything "compiled for the JVM" suffers the penalties of interpretation at
> run-time. I've read the claims otherwise, but the tests that I've performed
> show that Java-JVM should be classed with the other virtual
> machines/interpreters for speed.
The JVM was slow when I last used Java, which was years ago -- has it
not got faster since? Java *ought* to be compileable to fast machine
code.
-- Philip Hunt, <cabalamat@googlemail.com> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT