Fast, Open Alternative to Java

DrInequality writes: "For those of you out there who admire the portability of Java but want something faster or open source, the answer to your prayers is finally here. The Internet Virtual Machine is open source, fast and supports C, C++, Java and ObjectiveC. There are some cool demos for Linux (requires Redhat 6.0 or above, and OpenGL 1.2 or Mesa 3.41) here (1.5MB) and for Windows (requires glut32.dll, here) here (1.5MB)." We mentioned this last year; perhaps it has improved. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in a language as portable as Java but speedier.

Comments

Faster?

[silicon_synapse]

Java is already comparable to C/C++ in speed. It has made a lot of improvements over time. I think the key to better speed now lies more in better code than in a better virtual machine. I can't see this gaining a significant acceptance. It'll probably do it's job well, but there needs to be some pretty compelling reason to move away from java.

Re:Faster?

[Waffle Iron]

Java is already comparable to C/C++ in speed.

Well, the actual situation depends very much on the abstraction level of the program being implemented.

JIT compiled Java is kind of strange because it is competeitive with C++ at both low-level (bit banging primitives) and high-level (dynamically allocated objects). However, in middle ground (nontrivial objects that can be allocated solely on the stack), C++ blows Java away. This is mainly because all Java data that is not a local primitive variable must be dynamically allocated.

As an example, one concept that is on the border between mid-level and high-level abstraction is strings:

If you use C++ at a nice comfortably high level of abstraction (i.e., with some implementations of STL's std::string), it can be significantly slower than Java because of construction and destruction of every function parameter. OTOH, if you write your C++ program in a painstaking and dangerous C-like fashion (using one stack-based buffer for a string across many levels of function call), it can be an 1 or 2 orders of magnitude faster. If you bang on strings alot, a language like Perl can be a good choice because its mutable strings are more efficient than Java and safer or easier than C/C++.

(Aside: In my experience, a rule-of-thumb is that most dynamic memory allocations in any language seem to take on the order of 1000 CPU clocks, and most dynamic "objects" end up consuming about 1000 bytes.)

Of course, at the end of the day, all the issues that I just raised pale in comparison to the importance of the basic structure of your algorithms. If you feed in 50X times your expected load into your application, it will often slow down and/or eat memory in a spectacular fashion. By recoding to eliminating that problem, you can often make a "slow" language outperform "fast" one. This is often done by identifying the portions of your algorithm that depend on input size and perform worse than N*log(N) in space or time, then recoding them so they don't.

The upshot: it all depends.

Re:Faster?

[MarkusQ]

...if you write your C++ program in a painstaking and dangerous C-like fashion (using one stack-based buffer for a string across many levels of function call), it can be an 1 or 2 orders of magnitude faster...

There is a general principle at work here: you can quite often go one or two orders of magnitude faster if you are willing to give up safety. It applies to everything from sex to ice hockey, and (viewed at the right level of abstraction) the results are always pretty much the same.

-- MarkusQ

DotGNU

[bstadil]

The DOTGNU guys has already looked at it. From Carsten Kuckuk via the MAilinglist

Quote

I printed out the spec last night and read it on the commuter train back
home. The IVM team essentially created a specification for a Motorola 68000
like 32 bit processor, assigned 16 bit opcodes to instructions and
implemented an interpreter for it as well as an adoption of the gcc
compiler.

Advantages:
+ Portable
+ It works
+ Very fast

Disadvantages:
- No separation of data and code
- Interface to the underlying operating system is POSIX
- No built-in security, not even a sandbox

My assessment:
o Good piece of Engineering: It's there, it works, it solves a problem, it's
GPLed, it's tested.
o In order to be used as one of the VMs for DotGnu, security needs to be
added. As one of the rules in secure programming is that you can never add
security to a system, but that it needs to be designed into it, I don't know
if that is possible.
o For my personal taste it's too close to real untyped assembly language.

Carsten Kuckuk

Unquote

Re:[insert scary music here]

[jilles]

It's just C compiled to bytecode. It doesn't have most of the features that made Java popular (e.g. security, dynamicity, reflectiveness because inherent design decisions in the way C programs work inhibit this). In other words it is no replacement.

Don't understand me wrong, maybe integrating such a thing with e.g. the gnu compiler would be useful. It would be great to create a single set of binaries and distribute them to the hubndreds of unix versions and other operating systems. But it has to be clear that this thing is orthogonal to java rather than the same.

In any case, I'm not impressed and even bored. Java is a relatively simple language. Most of the language concepts are easy to grasp, even for novice programmers. Yet people keep comparing it to more primitive languages such as C and suggesting alternatives which are basically C++ improved rather than Java improved. After years of being confronted with a rapidly growing java community, even some C++ programmers begin to appreciate things like garbage collection (after having dismissed it for years based on performance concerns). However, beyond garbage collection they are still largely missing the point (i.e. C is not so cool after all).

What I would like to see from the open source community (perhaps as a proof of concept) is a more ambitious effort, not just a (partial) duplication of features inspired by ignorance rather than innovation. Java has room for lots of improvement, lets set it as a baseline rather than a design goal. Duplicating all of Java's useful features should be a minimum requirement and not the ultimate design goal.

This post is rather harsh, I know. However, I think this is a fundamental problem with open source in general and linux in particular: it's mass production of commodity software components (kernels, compilers, IDEs, word processors), not creation of new ones. If cutting edge technology is your thing, the propietary world is still the source of it (speech recognition, cool 3d technology, AI related improvements to user interfaces, compiler technology, languages, ...). It is very rare to see an open source project that does not just duplicate features but instead introduces radically new features and paradigms. There are some research projects that use open source to distribute their stuff but these generally play only a marginal role in the open source community. The big open source projects are all about duplicating and imitating the bigger/better (in most cases) propietary counterparts.

In short I find the open source community boring & backwards. Its contributions are very useful and I use them on a daily basis. However, as a researcher I don't want to wait for thirty years to see things like OO being grudgingly accepted; I hate it when linux is advocated as a windows alternative when the people doing so largely fail to even realize why windows got popular in the first place. The same applies to Java and Visual Basic (yes, from the *evil empire* you understand me correctly). The features that made those things popular have yet to be duplicated. Effords like the one advocated in this article are just so backwards they only make me angry. Go do something useful! Don't waste your time figuring out how to reinvent the wheel, I already have half a dozen.