Slashdot Mirror
Linux Number Crunching: Languages and Tools
ChaoticCoyote writes " You've covered some of my past forays into benchmarking, so I thought Slashdot might be interested in Linux Number Crunching: Benchmarking Compilers and Languages for ia32. I wrote the article while trying to decide between competing technologies. No one benchmark (or set of benchmarks) provides an absolute answer -- but information helps make reasonable decisions. Among the topics covered: C++, Java, Fortran 95, gcc, gcj, Intel compilers, SMP, double-precision math, and hyperthreading."
...I've heard a lot of complaints from my peers about Java being slow.
Allow me to join the chorus.
Java isn't slow, but sometimes you do have to program more thoughtfully to make Java fast.
No. Java *can* be made less mind-bogglingly slow by avoiding certain things...preallocating a pool of objects and using primitive types (like int) whenever possible helps. The way the language is designed makes it *easy* to be mind-bogglingly slow. That doesn't mean that going out of your way to avoid these things makes Java fast. It makes it only "slow".
Java is Fast for Dummies
Ah, yes. A link tellings how Java isn't *really* that slow on "javaworld.com". I took a skim.
The first two pages say basically "Java isn't that slow". They then start rambling about various features that make Java a good language.
They claim that Java programs load faster than native programs. (The article was written, BTW, in Feb '98, to give an idea of how full of BS they are). This is stupid. JVM startup and load time *dwarfs* application link time. Write "hello world" in C++ and in Java.
First, they laud the small executable size of Java as being a performance boost based on binary format. Everything I've read points the *other* way...Java *is* fairly compact, but can contain data that isn't nicely aligned along host boundaries.
Second, what they're talking about, if it's even accurate these days, which I doubt, has a lot to do with the lousiness of the Windows runtime linker. This isn't really an issue for Linux.
Third, while insinuating that minimizing code size provides a performance boost, they talk about how great it is that Java lets you use *built in* libraries, whereas C++ progams need to *bundle* libraries. What? That's stupid. They're shifting the libraries around, but it sure as hell isn't decreasing total amount of data that needs to get loaded.
Fourth, this gem: Finally, Java contains special libraries that support images and sound files in compressed formats, such as Joint Photographic Expert Group (JPEG) and Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) for images, and Adaptive m -law encoded (AU) for audio. In contrast, the only natively supported formats in Windows NT are uncompressed: bitmap (BMP) for images and wave (WAV) for audio. Compression can reduce the size of images by an order of magnitude and audio files by a factor of three. Additional class libraries are available if you want to add support for other graphics and sound formats.
They're billing this as *improving* performance? Yeah, I'd love to have my app blow CPU time decompressing a JPEG image instead of reading a slightly larger BMP image if I'm trying to minimize load time. Oh, and have it load all the JPEG loading code, too.
They then proceed to ramble about selective loading, and try to imply that Java's runtime linking is faster than C++'s.
They *then* show off smaller binary sizes by embedding a BMP in the C++ binary and a GIF in the Java binary. Impressive.
They then claim that claims of poor Java performance are based on non-JIT implementations. This neatly lets them avoid actually citing numbers. Sure, I'll agree that Java went from "Performance Hideous" to "Performance Bad". Everyone uses JIT these days, and damned if Java isn't *still* slow.
They then try to talk about how JIT allows code to be optimized just like C++. Wow. Yup, JIT sure is known for impressive optimization, isn't it?
They then use the most artificial, contrived benchmarks I've ever seen (which conveniently avoid almost all of the Java pitfalls...they don't need to do array access, they're trivial to implement without heap allocation...)
They finish up talking about how C++ RTTI performance sucks compared to Java (ignoring the fact that Java hits RTTI code *far* more often than C++ does, like every time it yanks something out of a generic container class).
Finally, they finish up by talking about a bunch of random Java features that they think are great, like garbage collection "First, your programs are virtually immune to memory leaks." Hope you don't use hash tables, buddy.
Next, they talk about how a JVM can defrag memory. I'm going to have to just crack up at that. This isn't a performance boost unless you're using a language that *hideously* fragments memory and eats memory like a *beast* (granted, Java is the best candidate I know of). Runtime memory defragmentation went out of fashion with the classic Mac OS...it's pretty much a bad idea as long as you have a hard drive available. VM systems are pretty damn good these days...if you're trying to maximize performance, there are almost always better things to be doing than blowing cycles and bandwidth defragging memory. There's a reason we don't do it any more.
Basically, my conclusion is that "Java is Fast for Dummies" is primarily aimed at, well, dummies.
May we never see th
You should consider the readability of the language for someone WHO KNOWS THE LANGUAGE, dammit.
I don't go round claiming japanese or arabic is unreadable - I just don't know the language.
The analogy extends further - it is possible to construct almost unreadable drivel in natural languages, and it is possible to construct almost unreadable drivel even in python.
However normal code written in python, forth, common lisp, or even, god forbid, c++ or perl is readable to someone who knows the language.
Now, some programming languages are closer to english in appearance than others. However, for long-term use, that doesn't matter so much - it's just a barrier to entry for lazy people.
I don't happen to know K. I do know APL, though - APL didn't look like K, since it had its own non-ASCII symbol set. I do find it difficult to read the relatively new asciified line-noise APL-derived languages. But that's because I haven't bothered to learn 'em! I do suspect they would be harder to learn than APL, since the ASCII symbols are already overloaded with so many other meanings already - but once I'd learned them, I would expect that problem to fade - just like I'm not confused that "gift" in German means "poison" in english.
Actually, now that Unicode is widely supported, I would love to see a resurgence in APLs that use APL symbols, since they're much clearer to me - but so many people have been using the ASCIIfied APLs for so long now that that may never happen.
Choice of masters is not freedom.