I looked repeatedly. The only trolling I've found if your post. And at that, I can't even understand what it is you're trying to say.
The simple fact is, Python is commonly used as a glue language. With not so much work you can have very fast python (mixed language) applications. It does have its own VM. PyPy is the next logical evolution of it. Both manage memory. So I'm honestly not sure what you're trolling on about.
You're confusing Arduino with AVR. AVR is the actual microcontroller and they sell in much larger numbers. Arduino is a development platform in which the AVR fits.In other words, Arduino is a subset of the total AVR market, which in turn is a subset of the total microcontroller market.
Arduino is targeting the hobbyist who would rather write three lines of C code rather than fifty lines of assembly. They are two entirely different groups; though clearly there is some overlap.
For the Arduino group, you go here. For more general purpose AVR use, including some Arduino use, go here.
There are a number of wireless sensor network technologies whereby the periodically wake a CPU, take a reading, and record it. When full, they then transmit their sensor values to a centralized hub (typically larger and/or solar powered + these) or mesh network. These in turn tend to use this type of technology to steady recharge their batteries. The amount of power recovered is small, but so is the device's power demands. In many cases, people report modest battery life extensions (say something like 20%-30% longer field life between battery changes) to unlimited deployment lives; short of physical device/battery failure.
You've be amazed how little power some of these devices and microcontrollers consume over the period of a day or even a week while still driving a rx/tx device. Accordingly, it doesn't take much return from these types of devices to make a considerable contribution back to the system.
Not all plastics are created equal. The plastic you have in your car has nothing to do with the plastics in question. Furthermore, the plastics you have fall apart because they are made specifically to be cheap and have a finite life - not because they are plastic.
a DoS attack is theoretically free speech as well.
Not likely at all. This is the same reason you can't actually protest INSIDE the buildings because you cause a denial of service for those who wish to actually see federal locations. In other words, the law is pretty clear on this that its in no way imaginable this is protected as free speech.
I think you missed the point entirely and failed to read. 80% of ALL truck/SUV owners don't need a truck or SUV. Period. End of discussion. The OTHER stat means that 90% of truck/SUV owners could *likely* drive something else 90% of the time. Of course, that 10% could still be divided other ways too, but it doesn't change the fact you misread. At best, 80% of all trucks/SUVs could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't be any big deal - excluding the drama queens of the world.
That's hyper sensitive. It was a direct question, nothing more, nothing less. And given the political and media landscape and the hyper-biased user base here, its an extremely reasonable question.
and looking to start a partisan fight.
Considering I never sided, that's not true. Hell, my follow up even stated my leaning was to take your reply at face value without any references. I mean come on... You're a little too sensitive, IMOHO.
Insulting you was not my intent. But honestly, if your feel slighted from someone asking and direct question about your political leaning when offering obviously politically charged information, that's on you. I meant no offense and certainly did not take sides; rather showing contempt for the all too common political leanings/bias and misinformation. All of which seems to especially permeate/. these days. Hell, its exceptionally rare to even have an intelligent exchange on/. these days.
If you're mad at me, its completely misplaced. You should be mad on media (which you seem to agree), the/. user base, and the political landscape as its become today. It is what it is. Accordingly, you need to excuse my well justified cynicism.
According to two studies I've read over the years, fewer than 20% of the people who own trucks or SUVs actually require a truck or SUV. For most truck and SUV owners, its a way to compensate for penis envy. Roughly 90% of all SUVs in the US spend 90% of their time with a a single person inside.
In other words, most people absolutely do not require anything close to a truck or SUV. The fact we are providing exceptions to allow 80% of truck and SUV owners to flaunt their small penises is disgusting.
Not so with hybrids and electric vehicles now commonly part of their equations. Expect lots of hybrids and/or electrics for the sole purpose of pushing shitty gas guzzlers.
the easiest way to get that level of efficiency is to make cars out of carbon fiber instead of metal.
Actually, several books and many studies have been conducted which indicate modern plastics can be used to replace most of the metal used on cars today while provided for greater strength and rigidity with significant weight savings. These studies wwere specifically done with efficiency (pragmatic mpg improvements and less foreign oil dependance) in mind. Using this technology alone, its claimed the CAFE goals of 60mpg can be achieved. This technology also allows for aftermarket color/component customization and the potential for dramatic savings on wreck repairs. See an alarm going off here?
The technology literally exists today to create dramatically more fuel efficient vehicles (double) at less cost (rough 30%-50% less; some claim lots more). And before you start rebuking, please bother to go learn the costs of modern steel, a lot of which is now imported. This is true even according to the existing manufacturers' own studies. No ifs, ands, or buts, the only question is when will people invest in these newer technologies?
Realistically, working with carbon fiber is likely to dramatically increase costs and service/repairs, unlike some of the other alternative materials. But, those costs may be offset by potential fuel savings just because its so light in comparison. I dunno. But aside from that, the single biggest issue for adoption is distribution and manufacturing retooling, plus training and repair, while accounting for consumer confidence. By far, everything else is a distant second.
From the manufacturer's perspective, they don't want to go this route because it likely means far less revenue dollars on the service side in exchange for massive capital expenses and retool/retraining headaches. Not to mention liabilities associated with wholly new manufacturing and materials. Which means dealerships are very much against ALL of the newer technologies and traditionally they carry some weight with the manufacturers.
From a consumer world perspective its good for everyone. From a manufacturer and service/repair perspective, its good for everyone except them.
This is, of course, one of those classic cases where if the government wanted to, they could help instantly transform the market. But provide low cost loans for retooling and providing limited insurance for a finite period on the new materials, it would go a long ways toward addresses the liabilities and capital costs. On the short term it would also create a massive training market which would boost the economy. But far be it from me to suggest the government actually do one of the things they exist to do.
The problem here is, the security problems are both well known and well documented for over a decade now. No one doubts they exist. No one claims otherwise. The societal value added here, even to the hacking community, is a negative number.
Cool factor? Yes. Very cool? Yes. Untrustworthy douche bags? Yes!!!
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing. I would have taken your word at face value had you said you made a good faith effort to calculate the numbers, as opposed to simply parroting someone's propaganda.
Honestly I wasn't expecting references. Kudos for providing them.
What is included in your "war budget"? It gets really frustrating to look at those numbers because all too often insanely dumb things get lumped together which actually are not related to the war budget at all. For example, all too often people lump in costs which would exist regardless of the current war operations. Sometimes their cited numbers are off by 50%. So are your numbers accurate or just once sided political lies?
Thanks, I've deleted your e-mail invitation to the picnic. And your home drive. And the backups. Still working on your Google accounts.
Ah ha! Proof you're not the admin he's talking about. Had you been the administrator, you wouldn't know how to do those things. Perhaps you have a paranoid chip on your shoulder and should be fired too.
Your Incompetent SysAdmin
"Your paranoid, delusional, malicious, SysAdmin who wasn't being discussed."
And PyPy, which is likely the more significant of the two.
Parrot
Parrot is just a VM. Languages largely have nothing to do with it as it. I'll also point out LLVM, JVM, and PyPy, can all be used to support VMs for other languages.
I don't see people writing web applications using Python or Perl
Very disingenuous. Python is commonly used to develop lots and lots of web applications, which includes both front end and back end. Perl on the other hand, is largely not used for web at all anymore and is losing developer share in general. The fact you consider them comparable implies some type of intentioned slight against Python.
Everything is changing over to JavaScript
Yes, everything EXCEPT for MOST things. Javascript has definitely come into its own but in the grade scheme of things, it still pales in comparison to many other languages and platforms. And beyond that, most people really dislike Javascript, especially if they've used it very much. In the grand scheme of things for language features and syntax, Javascript rarely ranks high.
I'm assuming your anti-python bias stems from your javascript bias.
But you can't really call JavaScript an alternative to Java, because the two technologies are so different.
Exactly, which is why contrary to your assertion, Java and C will remain king from some time to come. In fact, given a choice, most people prefer Python over Java but the problem is that its not commercially backed by an enterprise vendor. Accordingly, Javascript is deemed the necessary evil because of its client/server web niche.
and Google (through Android), there is enough competition to keep Java technology fresh and modern
Not so. Google actually has a massive Java infrastructure investment. Android has absolutely NOTHING to do with that because Google's Android investment is 100% Dalvik, which absolutely is not Java. You're conflating Java the language with the JVM. Google's Android investment is 100% in Dalvik, which is a competitor to the JVM. As such, Google's Android investment is actually in spite of anything which is beneficial to the JVM.
It's a shame that Java never integrated with browsers too well,
Actually, me, like most people, are pretty happy about that. Consistently studies have shown that Java gained because its forced on developers at the enterprise level. Given an option they would typically choice some other language, with Python typically ranking fairly high. Accordingly, Javascript is in fact a crappy offshoot of Java and as such, also looked down on by most entrenched developers. Though given the options, Javascript is the lessor of the two browser (client side) evils.
furthermore : the people making money are NOT the climatologists, but people from the oil- coal-... industry.
Wrong! That's classic misinformation and misdirection. They BOTH make money. The fact that one is making more money doesn't suddenly invalidate that the other is also making large sums of money from extremely bad science.
If climatologists want to be taken serious, they need to throw away 80% of their data, 100% of their models, and 90% of everything they've ever said about the subject. Ya, it literally is that bad. Only then can we begin to talk about FACTS. Literally, only a tiny fraction of anything they have to say on the subject is factually accurate. They are their own worst enemy and absolutely are the root cause of shit loads of extremely bad science. That in turn undermines the potential implications. And its made only worse by ignorant people who then take 90% of that bad science as gospel, when in fact, almost everything they parrot is entirely bad science and factually invalid.
Hell, look at your own post. You seem to be trying to invalidate your own argument by disagreement with tons of facts while then coming around and agreeing and disagreeing with several things I said. This is exactly why people like you are not and should not be taken seriously. You are you're own worst enemy.
In a lot of ways, you share a lot with the anti-nuke nut jobs, in that they literally are creating the worst nuclear dangers and if they would just shut the fuck up, the entire world would be better for it. Its not that people don't want to deal with the issues. Largely, people do want to do with the issues. But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of what both groups have to say are factually completely bullshit and its at that point, no one wants to listen. As such, any possible good is completely offset by the negative culture created by all the lies, ignorance, and complete bullshit (bad science).
To suggest Ruby and Java are the least bit comparable is a joke.
Java is largely the definition commercialized enterprise institution. Ruby is the anti-establishment and is by definition, anti-enterprise. Hell, most of the Ruby community is anti-Python while so wanting to grow up to be python.
Calling Ruby anything other than a counter-culture, "hipster's" language, is disingenuous at best. And I place, "hipster" in quotes because real hipsters don't give a shit about programming languages.
Everytime the toxic gas from your car blows over my fence - you're violating my basic property rights
I don't think so. You have zero air property rights. Your property rights exist only at ground level and perhaps below ground level, depending on your deed. The only people I can think of who actually have "air rights" are industry, the EPA, and the FAA.
I'll just point out that the speed and memory issues of Java from Oracle vs Dalvik are so in the noise compared to real optimization,
My comments are specifically focused on the Dalvik target platform. Java ME leveraged existing, entrenched formats. For mobile platforms this has many disadvantages. Dalvik's design specifically broke from this because in doing so they directly gained advantaged in their fork/COW model. So bluntly stating it, Dalvik's approach purposely broke with Java's design (and by extention Java ME's limitations) so as to provide better performance and reduce memory footprint given the limitations of a mobile computing platform.
Both systems suffer from insane inefficiency due to memory layout,
Exactly, and Java ME suffers here specifically because they carried over a lot of burden from the desktop environment which does not have such platform constraints.
Both systems suffer from insane inefficiency due to memory layout
This is true, but Dalvik suffers less specifically because they did not carry forward Java ME's flaws. Its one thing to far from optimal (in context of the mobile environment), as is the case with Java (and by extension Java ME) and another to not be perfectly optimal. Frequently there exists a large area in between for improvement. Dalvik is far from optimal by still far more optimized than Java ME in so far as loading of its file formats.
If you want to talk about pure CPU efficiency for applications that are not memory hogs, I can tell you from benchmarks I've performed that Oracle's JVM is very close to hand coded C performance.
Not really topical at all. And of course, the "close to hand coded C performance", is always inaccurate without the long, long list of caveats of conditions. But again, not the least bit topical. Again, context is everything. Context here is deviation from file formats (specifically those contained with the zip files). Factually, one (Dalvik) is far more optimal for a mobile platform than the other (Java ME, JVM).
You seem to be under the extremely false impression I'm asserting Dalvik is more optimized than Java ME. I never made any such assertion. Again, context is everything.
I did, however, assert the file formats and utilization of those formats, and corresponding memory models, are far more optimal for Dalvik than Java ME; which they absolutely are. That, however, is not even close to more generalized claims of superior overall performance, which I absolutely never claimed.
Slashdot Mirror
at their own expense. As in, "not getting paid".
As in will get back pay.
I looked repeatedly. The only trolling I've found if your post. And at that, I can't even understand what it is you're trying to say.
The simple fact is, Python is commonly used as a glue language. With not so much work you can have very fast python (mixed language) applications. It does have its own VM. PyPy is the next logical evolution of it. Both manage memory. So I'm honestly not sure what you're trolling on about.
Nice troll AC. So you can start a subthread but you can't start a subsubthread which makes the original subthread moot?
Again....nice troll.
Not to mention the massive savings on rack space, which can get very expensive per square foot.
Chances are, their return is a year or two once you factor everything in.
This is a complete, bullshit, troll post.
I always found PostgresQL harder to admin.
Not likely.
It needs to be VACUUM'ed periodically. How often?
For the vast majority of work loads, it happens automatically.
The poor admin is supposed to figure that out themselves.
Nope. Not at all. See above. And there are tools to figure out if this applies. For 99% of MySQL users, they'll never need to know what vacuum is.
I could keep going. Literally nothing in your post is accurate. Everything you said is literally completely wrong or a half truth.
What a troll.
You're confusing Arduino with AVR. AVR is the actual microcontroller and they sell in much larger numbers. Arduino is a development platform in which the AVR fits.In other words, Arduino is a subset of the total AVR market, which in turn is a subset of the total microcontroller market.
Arduino is targeting the hobbyist who would rather write three lines of C code rather than fifty lines of assembly. They are two entirely different groups; though clearly there is some overlap.
For the Arduino group, you go here.
For more general purpose AVR use, including some Arduino use, go here.
There are a number of wireless sensor network technologies whereby the periodically wake a CPU, take a reading, and record it. When full, they then transmit their sensor values to a centralized hub (typically larger and/or solar powered + these) or mesh network. These in turn tend to use this type of technology to steady recharge their batteries. The amount of power recovered is small, but so is the device's power demands. In many cases, people report modest battery life extensions (say something like 20%-30% longer field life between battery changes) to unlimited deployment lives; short of physical device/battery failure.
You've be amazed how little power some of these devices and microcontrollers consume over the period of a day or even a week while still driving a rx/tx device. Accordingly, it doesn't take much return from these types of devices to make a considerable contribution back to the system.
Not all plastics are created equal. The plastic you have in your car has nothing to do with the plastics in question. Furthermore, the plastics you have fall apart because they are made specifically to be cheap and have a finite life - not because they are plastic.
a DoS attack is theoretically free speech as well.
Not likely at all. This is the same reason you can't actually protest INSIDE the buildings because you cause a denial of service for those who wish to actually see federal locations. In other words, the law is pretty clear on this that its in no way imaginable this is protected as free speech.
I think you missed the point entirely and failed to read. 80% of ALL truck/SUV owners don't need a truck or SUV. Period. End of discussion. The OTHER stat means that 90% of truck/SUV owners could *likely* drive something else 90% of the time. Of course, that 10% could still be divided other ways too, but it doesn't change the fact you misread. At best, 80% of all trucks/SUVs could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't be any big deal - excluding the drama queens of the world.
is pretty accusative
That's hyper sensitive. It was a direct question, nothing more, nothing less. And given the political and media landscape and the hyper-biased user base here, its an extremely reasonable question.
and looking to start a partisan fight.
Considering I never sided, that's not true. Hell, my follow up even stated my leaning was to take your reply at face value without any references. I mean come on... You're a little too sensitive, IMOHO.
Insulting you was not my intent. But honestly, if your feel slighted from someone asking and direct question about your political leaning when offering obviously politically charged information, that's on you. I meant no offense and certainly did not take sides; rather showing contempt for the all too common political leanings/bias and misinformation. All of which seems to especially permeate /. these days. Hell, its exceptionally rare to even have an intelligent exchange on /. these days.
If you're mad at me, its completely misplaced. You should be mad on media (which you seem to agree), the /. user base, and the political landscape as its become today. It is what it is. Accordingly, you need to excuse my well justified cynicism.
According to two studies I've read over the years, fewer than 20% of the people who own trucks or SUVs actually require a truck or SUV. For most truck and SUV owners, its a way to compensate for penis envy. Roughly 90% of all SUVs in the US spend 90% of their time with a a single person inside.
In other words, most people absolutely do not require anything close to a truck or SUV. The fact we are providing exceptions to allow 80% of truck and SUV owners to flaunt their small penises is disgusting.
Not so with hybrids and electric vehicles now commonly part of their equations. Expect lots of hybrids and/or electrics for the sole purpose of pushing shitty gas guzzlers.
the easiest way to get that level of efficiency is to make cars out of carbon fiber instead of metal.
Actually, several books and many studies have been conducted which indicate modern plastics can be used to replace most of the metal used on cars today while provided for greater strength and rigidity with significant weight savings. These studies wwere specifically done with efficiency (pragmatic mpg improvements and less foreign oil dependance) in mind. Using this technology alone, its claimed the CAFE goals of 60mpg can be achieved. This technology also allows for aftermarket color/component customization and the potential for dramatic savings on wreck repairs. See an alarm going off here?
The technology literally exists today to create dramatically more fuel efficient vehicles (double) at less cost (rough 30%-50% less; some claim lots more). And before you start rebuking, please bother to go learn the costs of modern steel, a lot of which is now imported. This is true even according to the existing manufacturers' own studies. No ifs, ands, or buts, the only question is when will people invest in these newer technologies?
Realistically, working with carbon fiber is likely to dramatically increase costs and service/repairs, unlike some of the other alternative materials. But, those costs may be offset by potential fuel savings just because its so light in comparison. I dunno. But aside from that, the single biggest issue for adoption is distribution and manufacturing retooling, plus training and repair, while accounting for consumer confidence. By far, everything else is a distant second.
From the manufacturer's perspective, they don't want to go this route because it likely means far less revenue dollars on the service side in exchange for massive capital expenses and retool/retraining headaches. Not to mention liabilities associated with wholly new manufacturing and materials. Which means dealerships are very much against ALL of the newer technologies and traditionally they carry some weight with the manufacturers.
From a consumer world perspective its good for everyone. From a manufacturer and service/repair perspective, its good for everyone except them.
This is, of course, one of those classic cases where if the government wanted to, they could help instantly transform the market. But provide low cost loans for retooling and providing limited insurance for a finite period on the new materials, it would go a long ways toward addresses the liabilities and capital costs. On the short term it would also create a massive training market which would boost the economy. But far be it from me to suggest the government actually do one of the things they exist to do.
The problem here is, the security problems are both well known and well documented for over a decade now. No one doubts they exist. No one claims otherwise. The societal value added here, even to the hacking community, is a negative number.
Cool factor? Yes. Very cool? Yes. Untrustworthy douche bags? Yes!!!
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing. I would have taken your word at face value had you said you made a good faith effort to calculate the numbers, as opposed to simply parroting someone's propaganda.
Honestly I wasn't expecting references. Kudos for providing them.
What is included in your "war budget"? It gets really frustrating to look at those numbers because all too often insanely dumb things get lumped together which actually are not related to the war budget at all. For example, all too often people lump in costs which would exist regardless of the current war operations. Sometimes their cited numbers are off by 50%. So are your numbers accurate or just once sided political lies?
Thanks, I've deleted your e-mail invitation to the picnic. And your home drive. And the backups. Still working on your Google accounts.
Ah ha! Proof you're not the admin he's talking about. Had you been the administrator, you wouldn't know how to do those things. Perhaps you have a paranoid chip on your shoulder and should be fired too.
Your Incompetent SysAdmin
"Your paranoid, delusional, malicious, SysAdmin who wasn't being discussed."
There, fixed that for you.
+100 Insightful.
Most of the reports I've read say they are about 1/10 as reliable as a hard drive.
the Python VM
And PyPy, which is likely the more significant of the two.
Parrot
Parrot is just a VM. Languages largely have nothing to do with it as it. I'll also point out LLVM, JVM, and PyPy, can all be used to support VMs for other languages.
I don't see people writing web applications using Python or Perl
Very disingenuous. Python is commonly used to develop lots and lots of web applications, which includes both front end and back end. Perl on the other hand, is largely not used for web at all anymore and is losing developer share in general. The fact you consider them comparable implies some type of intentioned slight against Python.
Everything is changing over to JavaScript
Yes, everything EXCEPT for MOST things. Javascript has definitely come into its own but in the grade scheme of things, it still pales in comparison to many other languages and platforms. And beyond that, most people really dislike Javascript, especially if they've used it very much. In the grand scheme of things for language features and syntax, Javascript rarely ranks high.
I'm assuming your anti-python bias stems from your javascript bias.
But you can't really call JavaScript an alternative to Java, because the two technologies are so different.
Exactly, which is why contrary to your assertion, Java and C will remain king from some time to come. In fact, given a choice, most people prefer Python over Java but the problem is that its not commercially backed by an enterprise vendor. Accordingly, Javascript is deemed the necessary evil because of its client/server web niche.
and Google (through Android), there is enough competition to keep Java technology fresh and modern
Not so. Google actually has a massive Java infrastructure investment. Android has absolutely NOTHING to do with that because Google's Android investment is 100% Dalvik, which absolutely is not Java. You're conflating Java the language with the JVM. Google's Android investment is 100% in Dalvik, which is a competitor to the JVM. As such, Google's Android investment is actually in spite of anything which is beneficial to the JVM.
It's a shame that Java never integrated with browsers too well,
Actually, me, like most people, are pretty happy about that. Consistently studies have shown that Java gained because its forced on developers at the enterprise level. Given an option they would typically choice some other language, with Python typically ranking fairly high. Accordingly, Javascript is in fact a crappy offshoot of Java and as such, also looked down on by most entrenched developers. Though given the options, Javascript is the lessor of the two browser (client side) evils.
furthermore : the people making money are NOT the climatologists, but people from the oil- coal- ... industry.
Wrong! That's classic misinformation and misdirection. They BOTH make money. The fact that one is making more money doesn't suddenly invalidate that the other is also making large sums of money from extremely bad science.
If climatologists want to be taken serious, they need to throw away 80% of their data, 100% of their models, and 90% of everything they've ever said about the subject. Ya, it literally is that bad. Only then can we begin to talk about FACTS. Literally, only a tiny fraction of anything they have to say on the subject is factually accurate. They are their own worst enemy and absolutely are the root cause of shit loads of extremely bad science. That in turn undermines the potential implications. And its made only worse by ignorant people who then take 90% of that bad science as gospel, when in fact, almost everything they parrot is entirely bad science and factually invalid.
Hell, look at your own post. You seem to be trying to invalidate your own argument by disagreement with tons of facts while then coming around and agreeing and disagreeing with several things I said. This is exactly why people like you are not and should not be taken seriously. You are you're own worst enemy.
In a lot of ways, you share a lot with the anti-nuke nut jobs, in that they literally are creating the worst nuclear dangers and if they would just shut the fuck up, the entire world would be better for it. Its not that people don't want to deal with the issues. Largely, people do want to do with the issues. But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of what both groups have to say are factually completely bullshit and its at that point, no one wants to listen. As such, any possible good is completely offset by the negative culture created by all the lies, ignorance, and complete bullshit (bad science).
To suggest Ruby and Java are the least bit comparable is a joke.
Java is largely the definition commercialized enterprise institution. Ruby is the anti-establishment and is by definition, anti-enterprise. Hell, most of the Ruby community is anti-Python while so wanting to grow up to be python.
Calling Ruby anything other than a counter-culture, "hipster's" language, is disingenuous at best. And I place, "hipster" in quotes because real hipsters don't give a shit about programming languages.
Everytime the toxic gas from your car blows over my fence - you're violating my basic property rights
I don't think so. You have zero air property rights. Your property rights exist only at ground level and perhaps below ground level, depending on your deed. The only people I can think of who actually have "air rights" are industry, the EPA, and the FAA.
I'll just point out that the speed and memory issues of Java from Oracle vs Dalvik are so in the noise compared to real optimization,
My comments are specifically focused on the Dalvik target platform. Java ME leveraged existing, entrenched formats. For mobile platforms this has many disadvantages. Dalvik's design specifically broke from this because in doing so they directly gained advantaged in their fork/COW model. So bluntly stating it, Dalvik's approach purposely broke with Java's design (and by extention Java ME's limitations) so as to provide better performance and reduce memory footprint given the limitations of a mobile computing platform.
Both systems suffer from insane inefficiency due to memory layout,
Exactly, and Java ME suffers here specifically because they carried over a lot of burden from the desktop environment which does not have such platform constraints.
Both systems suffer from insane inefficiency due to memory layout
This is true, but Dalvik suffers less specifically because they did not carry forward Java ME's flaws. Its one thing to far from optimal (in context of the mobile environment), as is the case with Java (and by extension Java ME) and another to not be perfectly optimal. Frequently there exists a large area in between for improvement. Dalvik is far from optimal by still far more optimized than Java ME in so far as loading of its file formats.
If you want to talk about pure CPU efficiency for applications that are not memory hogs, I can tell you from benchmarks I've performed that Oracle's JVM is very close to hand coded C performance.
Not really topical at all. And of course, the "close to hand coded C performance", is always inaccurate without the long, long list of caveats of conditions. But again, not the least bit topical. Again, context is everything. Context here is deviation from file formats (specifically those contained with the zip files). Factually, one (Dalvik) is far more optimal for a mobile platform than the other (Java ME, JVM).
You seem to be under the extremely false impression I'm asserting Dalvik is more optimized than Java ME. I never made any such assertion. Again, context is everything.
I did, however, assert the file formats and utilization of those formats, and corresponding memory models, are far more optimal for Dalvik than Java ME; which they absolutely are. That, however, is not even close to more generalized claims of superior overall performance, which I absolutely never claimed.