http://web.archive.org/web/20040805153930/http://homepage.mac.com/spullara/rants/C1464297901/E775622191/index.html - In this benchmark Objective-C is 6.4 times slower than Java. And it's nothing unexpected - try to walk an Objective-C method call in a debugger in assembly language view someday...
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the source code that was used in the Benchmark. I do find his results about string handling dubious especially when he claims Java is actually faster than C. I really would like to see his code. Of course string benchmarks means squat, and I mean that in a good way (smile). If the benchmark was to allocate a string buffer assign it a value, and then change its value by inserting a substring, I could see Java being faster but not because of its op-code execution speed but how Java designers handle strings as immutable objects, cleaning up the dereferenced original values after execution. C, on the other hand, does exactly as it is told. Of course you can't upscale a string benchmark to a system benchmark...
I wrote several applications for Mac OS X and I don't really like Objective-C. It doesn't have a built-in garbage collector (it's possible to use conservative GC, but it's light years behind GC in Sun JVM), Objective-C is SLOW when you try to use it not only for UI, it doesn't have namespaces, and I also don't like its syntax (though it's a personal preference).
I also prefer Java, but only because I am more familiar with it than Objective C. It is my understanding that Objective-C 2.0 does have garbage collection. Personally I don't particularly care for garbage collection (I work with resource limited devices most of the time) and do like to be able to clean up my own mess as soon as I want to. I am able to gracefully perform garbage collection with J2ME, but only after experimentally figuring out where to manually invoke garbage collection during "cut-scenes" and sneaking in a garbage collection when the user believes he is actually waiting on the remote server. Admittedly, I use C for 99% of my embedded stuff now, and C++ when there is a need for OOP design.
Speed Objective-C is quite OK when you need to write event handlers which are called maybe several times per second. But it's not enough for anything more serious.
I can say the same thing about Java and most any interpreted/p-code out there... Maybe I'm misunderstanding the events that you are trying to handle.
Objective C _is_ as slow as Python when it does dynamic function calls. That's because they both use dynamic binding.
Of course, programs in Objective C use plain old C for most of functionality. But once you start using dynamic binding and other goodies - it's the world of SLOW.
You do realize that 99% of Java is dynamically linked. All methods are created to be virtual (makes since it's OO after all), and uses the "final" keyword to make a class more "directly invokable" (final means no more overriding is possible for that class) by reducing the tree of method addresses to a single table. By eliminating the tree searches for the entry point, you do speed up the invocation speed for that method. What you give up is all the nice OOP paradigm that Java has to offer. What you gain is some modularity by being able to use the same block of code / code space within multiple loops. If code space was not a concern, you could simply inline the method and let the compiler optimize it for you. Both ObjC and Java support inlining.
Now if I wanted to "game" a benchmark to promote my favorite language, I could make a simple program with all of its classes marked "final." This makes Java look better on the benchmark, but a proficient programmer would have thought that if he was going to give up all the OOP goodness Java had to offer, he would have written it in C. Technically, ObjC programmers could simply not encapsulate their code in a class, thus producing C code...
Keep in mind that the final trick only works with small code used in benchmarks. Applications that users would want to use would use the SDK and some GUI and that would require dynamic linking...
One final thought. A lot of Java libraries are not "final", otherwise they wouldn't be nice to work with. On the other hand, ObjC takes advantage of the C library which are directly called.
Yes I know. But that is a function of Java class library not of the language itself. I written similar libraries for embedded projects using C++ and any language that supports encapsulation and has support for / or have access to semaphores can easily be made thread safe. My personal favorite use of such objects are FIFOs that transport messages between threads (and processes).
Ok, now you can see the second person who claims that Java is extremely fast.
Oh, and Java GUI can be fast - check Google Android, it has a very nice custom Java GUI, which works blazingly fast on 200MHz CPU.
You show benchmarks for Java versus C, python versus C, and only provide conjecture that loosely links ObjC versus Java via Python. Unfortunately, you provide no benchmarks comparing ObjC to Python or more importantly ObjC to Java. You did show references for Java, C, and Python but none for Objective-C
It's refreshing to see someone come to the aid of Java. I like Java (and have used it since forever), but I just don't quite fully believe that Java is "faster" than Objective-C. I really don't know why it should matter...
The really cool thing about Objective-C is that you don't have to compare it's speed with C. You can write actual C code in your application. It looks like you can write your dynamically linked objects in Objective-C (which makes the GUI programming nice at least that's what I've heard) and you can write your bare-metal stuff in C. Java only offers JNI.
OK I'll bite == Keep in mind I am more familiar with Java than Obj-C but here I go:
The only part of the Java API that is worse than the Apple SDK is the GUI part. If Sun completely threw out Swing and started again from scratch (or Mac Java developers used Rococoa) it would be brilliant.
It is my understanding that Rococoa is a wrapper that allows Java to call Obj-C library routines. I guess this would put it in the same ballpark as IBM's GUI library.
Java's support for everything else-- from multithreading to data structures-- makes Objective-C look like the 30-year-old grampa it is.
I don't know what you are talking about here. All languages support data structures, and Obj-C is no different. I assume you mean built in library templates, and Java may have an edge here. I don't know how big the edge is, since personally I only use a subset of them and a lot of them are just there for legacy reasons. I would put this more in the realm of JavaSE/ME/EE the environment instead of Java the language. I'm sure it would only be a matter of time that Obj-C has a similar class library, if it isn't good enough already.
As for threading, Obj-C has an atomic attribute, @synchronized attribute, exception handling across threads, NSLock, NSRecursiveLock, NSConditionLock, and Semaphores. As for Java, you have the monitor attribute, synchronized, and event handling. I believe that both languages do adequately support threads. Both languages are subject to the limitation imposed by their host OS. Ok the JVM could perform multitasking in its own time slice, but boy would that suck...
I admit I only have written seriously multithreaded programs in Java (I have little demand for ObjC at the moment), but the Apple documentation seem pretty complete and ObjC has 20 more years of multithreading over Java (smile).
Anyway, I think I hit the crux of the problem being that I've had little demand for ObjC compared to Java. In fact, it is this demand that is forcing Apple to support Java. If the native SDK proves popular and the iPhone/iTouch marketshare continues to grow, I'll probably see less demand for Java and more demand for ObjC. This is what Sun is worried about, and this is the motivation for Sun to make a JVM for the iPhone.
And Java is extremely fast-- almost certainly faster than Objective-C, which suffers from the worst of both worlds in performance: static compilation and extremely dynamic linking. These days, dynamic compilation (which has available to it runtime and usage statistics) can optimize much more efficiently than static, leading to higher performance code. And Objective-C's extreme approach to dynamic linking means almost nothing can be inlined or statically optimized across message/function boundaries.
You are the first person I have seen (outside of Sun) that has used "extremely fast" and "java" in the same sentence. Do you have references? I would like to read up on the architectural differences. Objective C can drop down to C, but let's face it the speed factor now-a-days is more academic than practical. To be fair, both languages run fast enough to give a good user experience. I always had my doubts on the effectiveness of benchmarks in arguments like these. I am more of a "the right tool for the job" kinda person. This right tool being, what ever you feel most comfortable programming in.
Finally, the iPhone/Touch has some specific hardware to help make Java fast. Apple's just ignoring it. But Java on the iPhone using Apple's GUI library would be extremely cool.
You are sorta right. The ARM 1176JZF does have built in hardware that is capable of running Java bytecode. It is a Software/Hardware solution called Jazelle. I don't know how easy it would be to incorporate its use into OS X lite. I know it's nice in an embedded JVM environment, but I have no clue on how well it would work in a mach environment. I'm thi
I believe most basements are created to satisfy a requirement of laying a foundation (or footing) a certain distance below the frost line. In the south the frost line is often less than three feet (in my case 4 inches) and basements are only built to satisfy the home owner's desire for more usable space.
Since cellars suffer mold problems in the warm and moist climate in the south, it is rare that a house has one down here.
I forgot where I originally heard this explanation...
Yea and Symbian is a great OS to program within, The WiFi capabilities of the other smart phones are up-to-par, the other smartphones have a growing market share, everyone loves their UI... oh wait scratch that...
Ad hominem attack? No point being made? Troll? A little harsh don't cha think?
BTW, in order for it to be an Ad hominem attack, I would have to say that Virtual Machines are secure because Theo is an idiot. I didn't say that, and I don't think Theo is an idiot.
So let me break it down for you:
No, this is an example of a poor implementation of shared folders. This does not invalidate the use of virtual machines as a security mechanism. However, I will repeat what I said before on this subject: Virtualization solves an availability problem not a security problem.
My point was that VMware adding a poorly implemented feature called "shared folders" does not invalidate the argument that VM can be used to improve security.
For example, If you chose to not use "shared folders" and instead used network services to access files on the host OS, you would have compartmentalized the risk from vulnerabilities to within the guest OS. You could further mitigate the risk by having automated backups and sane permissions applied to the shared files.
I further repeated my stance that VM (in an enterprise setting) solves an availability problem, and was not really designed for improving security. Security was just a nice byproduct.
I could have said "Your example is just as valid as saying 'Problems and exploits found in Windows are perfect examples of why using an operating system to run application software within a given hardware platform is a bad idea'." But that would have been silly, and not have added anything to the conversation but a smartass example of how one buggy VM doesn't invalidate all VMs.
(something that Theo de Raadt said not that long ago, and was lambasted for.)
He was lambasted for creating a controversy that didn't exist just so that he would be mention in the press. Theo is that you?
I didn't attack Theo. I pointed out that Theo wasn't lambasted for his criticism of VM as a way of improving security, instead he was lambasted for the way the topic came about. Asking if you were Theo was a humorous jab...
Anyway, the "lambasting" was like this fictional exchange between Jack, Jill and their peers (I know it's a silly oversimplification):
Jack: Cardboard boxes make crappy apple pies!
Jill: Of course, cardboard boxes make crappy apple pies. We didn't make the boxes to put in the pie, we made them so we can carry more than one pie at a time.
Jack: Well I heard that some people were using cardboard boxes to make apple pies, and I wanted to voice my concern.
Peers: Well Duh. We already knew the proper use of cardboard boxes. Way to keep yourself topical Jack.
This is a great example of how virtual machines can actually reduce security
No, this is an example of a poor implementation of shared folders. This does not invalidate the use of virtual machines as a security mechanism. However, I will repeat what I said before on this subject: Virtualization solves an availability problem not a security problem.
(something that Theo de Raadt said not that long ago, and was lambasted for.)
He was lambasted for creating a controversy that didn't exist just so that he would be mention in the press. Theo is that you?
While I also believe that Wikipedia shouldn't always be used as an authoritative source, it does have references and it is openly peered reviewed. It's is still an invaluable and handy reference and the accuracy of its older entries do rival those of traditional encyclopedias.
For example, here are the references associated with the parent's wikipedia entry:
Deitel, Harvey M.; Deitel, Paul; Choffnes, David (2004). Operating Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-182827-8.
Silberschatz, Abraham; Galvin, Peter Baer; Gagne, Greg (2004). Operating System Concepts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-69466-3.
Tanenbaum, Andrew S.; Woodhull, Albert S. (2006). Operating Systems. Design and Implementation. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-142938-3.
Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (2001). Modern Operating Systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-092641-8.
Bic, Lubomur F.; Shaw, Alan C. (2003). Operating Systems.. Pearson: Prentice Hall.
That being said, the parent commenter quoted a stated definition of an operating system which I happen to agree with (and it happens to agree with all of my old and new computer texts). You on the other hand countered with an opinion, given within Wikipedia, as evident by the word "views" as in "Free Software Foundation views Linux..." And just because the FSF has this view doesn't necessarily make it fact.
Just for argument sake, let's look at an "authoritative" source like the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
operating system (noun): software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions) (1961)
While the M-W dictionary does not give references (kinda hard for a dictionary), it does have a reputation for giving accurate definitions for words used in the english language. This definition correctly applies to the Linux kernel and not the GNU user land tools.
So now we have two authoritative sources that do not support your argument that Linux is incorrectly defined as an operating system.
But wait:
Aside from that, we are supposed to be nerds, being in slashdot, and nerds know what OSs are. Encyclopedias don't apply in that context, because the knowledge they bring to the discussion is too shallow for people who know enough about the subject in particular.
When the references fail to support your view, you turn to popular opinion of slashdot.
There are different views on what an OS is, but the most common way of seeing it is that Windows XP, Ubuntu, and OSX are OSs, and Mac, kernel32 and Linux are kernels. That happens because what most people mean as Linux OS is Linux + userland.
And just in case popular opinion fails you, let's talk about what is normally meant when "operating system" is used by the average person and not by its technical definition.
I know I won't be able to change your opinion, but please let this comment serve to remind you that this is a trivial controversy brought on by an organization that feels like it is being slighted. While the software that FSF wrote does add value to Linux (and other more proprietary OSs), the kernel and most of the popular distributions surrounding that kernel, chose not to include GNU in the name. Therefore, not matter how much you may want everybody to say "GNU/Linux" this would be more than technically inaccurate due the fact that it was not named that way by its creators.
In other news, EMACS (which until very recently was maintained by RMS himself) is named EMACS and not GNU/EMACS... film at eleven.
Sorry, but I've gotta call you dead wrong on this. It draws mostly from people who are NOT decision makers. The people who end up on juries are the mostly the compliant ones who leave decision making up to others.
I think you are the one that is "dead wrong" and basing your opinion on a stereotype. (You may want to cut down on the number of court room dramas you watch on TV)
Yes, it is true the prosecution will strike the jurors who may be sympathetic to the defense, and the defense attorney will strike the jurors who may have strong opinions but neither party can strike the whole jury pool. The theory being that the jurors left over will be fair and impartial. I don't know about your state, but where I'm at it is very difficult to be excused from a jury. The judge presiding over the jury pool here is a hard ass and nothing short of being extremely ill or a death of an immediate family member will get you excused. I served 3 times (and seem to been picked after I voted in the last election -- coincidence? ) in the past 20 years. On the first day, the juror pool would be 3/4 full, however the local sheriffs department is nice enough to remind those that were absent and on the second day the room is packed to the gills.
I served in a pool with physicists, small business owners, nurses, office managers, engineers, and young professionals. You would think that the jury room would have just as many stay-at-home mothers or unemployed people, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It could be statistics or the fact that most "nonthinking deadbeats" in my community don't bother to register to vote.
An example of how much of a hard ass our judge was:
My county is located on the state line and a good percentage of our population work out of state near the military bases. In my jury pool we had three out-of-state workers and being out-of-state they were not covered by a state law that provided wage guarantees while serving jury duty. They tried to be excused due to the hardships associated with having an out-of-state employer but failed and spent their week being a juror for $10 a day.
This is how ALL the parties involved want it. The real decision makers want to get back to their decision-making jobs, not be one of twelve, so they find a way out. The prosecution and the defense attorneys do not want someone who makes decisions; they want someone who can be led and instructed. So does the judge.
The whole system is designed to filter in people who can be controlled and led.
This is just plain silly. Of course the defense would like to have jurors that would be stupid enough to give an acquittal no matter the amount of blatantly obvious evidence and a trial of a former football player proves that occasionally the defense gets their wish. However, it is in the best interest of the prosecution to have a fair trail that can survive appeal. As far as the judge is concerned, he is supposed to be an impartial referee. Of course there are horrible judges (football player), but I believe they are the exception and not the rule...
But then, you say that a guy names Linus wrote some OS.
I'll explain again, kids. Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel, a crucial tool for making an OS.
The resulting OS is GNU/Linux, and your confusion is the reason why calling the OS "Linux" is wrong, it gives credit to Linus, and the Linux project, for the work of GNU people. People say it doesn't matter, but it does matter, in free software, attribution is all.
Crap. Not the old "GNU/Linux" argument. I'm sorry the operating system is called "Linux" and the more popular Linux distributions are called Redhat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Debian. No matter how many times this is argued, things will not change. The GPL does not dictate that we prefix all GPL programs with "GNU", and neither Linus nor the distribution creators choose to use "GNU" in their names so tough luck.
BTW, while we are being a little technical here. Operating System is charged with processing system data, user input, provide an API to hardware devices, and similar activities that falls within the domain of the kernel. The GNU utilities are user land tools that help the user manage resources and configure the kernel. So to be more precise, the operating system is called Linux and the resulting distributions that contain GNU utilities are called Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, etc...
This is why everybody calls the OS Linux for the past 15 or so years.
True. That was a campaign promise that has yet to be fulfilled. To be fair, they tried multiple times and faced a presidential veto and filibustering from the republicans.
Personally, I feel that we need to stay until we have a good exit strategy. An unconditional pullout is stupid! Pulling out before a stable government has been established will create another rogue state that will further destabilize the region.
So why wasn't the Democratic Congress' first action when they took over in 2007 to introduce articles of impeachment? If they had the evidence so many people thought they did, why hasn't that happened?
Because everyone looked back and saw how the republicans did not accomplish any real legislative goals during the impeachment shenanigans, and probably felt that their interests would be better served by fulfilling their campaign promises during the first 100 days.
The republican grand standing during the Clinton years, did way more harm than good. It polarized all political thinking, generated grid lock in the legislative branch, and the federal government actually shut-down a couple of times due to a lack of a budget. Just because the republicans care more about their agenda than what's good for the country, doesn't mean the democrats should fall in that same trap...
No you did not, and I did not mean to imply that you did.
I was addressing the "mis-characterization" by assuming that you were implying that my one-liner was trivializing the issue at hand, and therefore expanded my line of thinking...
But the quote that you replied with:
So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?
does get to the heart of the matter. The grand-parent post to this discussions was:
That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.
So I assumed you where in the same line of thought as the grand parent.
I'm not going to argue that Clinton's perjury impeachment was a good investment of our congresscritters' time and effort, but comon! As long as you are going to intentionally mischaracterize the basic premise of the impeachment, you aught to stay out of the discussion entire
I've haven't mischaracterized anything.
My point being that the republicans slowed legislation to a crawl and caused a media frenzy over the Clinton impeachment. It is these SAME republican congressmen that demanded the full respect of congress during the impeachment (over a blowjob) of Clinton, that are actively turning a blind eye toward the Bush administration. They are walking out protesting that congress is over-stepping their bounds when it comes to forcing the Bush administration to abide by our laws over REAL issues, but they are the ones that created the precedence during the previous administration.
We all know that the impeachment and the Kenneth Star investigation were nothing but a fishing expedition to take away executive privilege from President Clinton. Ironically, it is this same executive privilege that they are trying to reinforce in a attempt to keep President Bush in power.
Or did you mean that the impeachment was more about lying to congress than about an extra-marital affair? Hmmm. A funny thing happened during the Bush administration, when Libby lied under oath about the Valarie Plame leak. Let's look in Wikipedia about how the current administration handled it:
"On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."
So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?
Rush actually HAS a disability, which got hidden in his ADMITTED drug addiction.He's deaf (or was, before some implants) through complications.
First of all, Rush disclosed his disability before the drug scandal erupted. Secondly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Boo hoo! I have a hearing problem too, so where's my oxycotin? He lost all creditability with me when he proved once and for all that he is just good old radio entertainer named Rusty masquerading as a conservative radio show wind bag.
. He didn't make a big deal of it until one day on radio he admitted it to his audience and went and got help. Hasn't spoken all that much more about it.
Why would he? Eating crow isn't something you want to do on a regular basis. So what he's a saint because he got caught being a hypocrite and he prefers to lay low and hope the controversy eventually blows over?
Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.
Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?
And this is one thing that I have a problem with Linus about. Those who ignore politics will be done in by politics.
Et tu RMS?
Seriously, RMS is outspoken enough for others to put the Free Software Movement into practice. Linus has done just as much for GNU by managing an open source project that attracted the attention of the computing powerhouses, as RMS has done by dueling windmills. Linus is the Yin, to RMS's Yang. Without a concrete demonstration of a successful open source project, RMS would be nothing more than an obscure footnote in MIT history. Without RMS' vision and passion about GNU, Linus' project would be just another free implementation of a unix like operating system.
Before anyone gets too offended, RMS started GNU in 1983 and GNU really didn't become a "household word" until people had a product to identify with it. Evidently a nice editor, compiler, debugger, and some unix command replacements weren't enough. Lucky for us, Linus chose to license his work as GPL.
Not only that, the POP server works too. I've been using Apple mail (and thunderbird on the other machine) to check my hotmail (msn) accounts for a long while..
Sounds like the article writer should have gotten off his high horse and asked what was involved in getting hotmail to work with Outlook express.
Instead he throws a tantrum like a little child...
This would have made Apple's position even worse. IBM would be more inclined to favor the higher profit margin/higher production run for console manufacture, than the endless performance upgrades demanded by general computing. This has always been Intel's strength.
This is not IBM's fault. Intel knew early on that the way to sell more chips was to create business/production model that depended on making the current product obsolete with the next product release.
IBM designed both the Xenon Multicore CPU for Microsoft and the Cell CPU for Sony. Both are base on the PowerPC. Chartered Manufacturing is doing the fabrication work for the Xenon, and the Cell CPU is being fabricated in house at the East Fish Kill, New York facility.
My point still remains that IBM has failed to meet production/design demands in the past, and if Apple stayed with IBM they would have to compete with the game console market - More so with Sony than with Microsoft.
There is a difference between being able to PRODUCE processors and being able to SUPPLY the cell processors. There have been more than a few occasions where Macintosh sales were hurt from CPU shortages.
With Sony and Microsoft buying these cell processors to supply a growing game console market, would Apple even have a chance?
Intel scored huge points with their ability to guaranty enough chips are available, and they sealed the deal by demonstrating their ability to customize the Core 2 Duo to meet product requirements. On the other hand, IBM couldn't even keep Apple happily supplied with G5s...
Not to mention, being a member of the x86 family has its advantages: Software, OS options, cheaper prices, competing suppliers (That are large enough)...
Ha ha. I'm just responding to your comment. I'm neither angry nor a troll.
I pointed out why it didn't work for me...
You did more than that. You chimed in with your opinion about subscription music. Remember?
Yeah, but that argument doesn't hold water at all. Video is generally watched once or twice (with some exceptions) where music is listened to repeatedly.
And then you insulted the original poster (emphasis mine):
I just don't have that flexibility with rental music. I'm also not interested in the "band of the week". I tend to listen to music for years, so renting doesn't do it for me. I guess if I was 15 again and listened to whatever the radio told me to, I'd rent.
Is it coming back to you?
oh fuck it. You seem to be too stupid to bother to reply to.
So now that you have exhausted your mental facilities, you now resort to name calling... nice!
but why oh why would you buy DRM music when you can get a CD??? No wonder the record companies have become so fat and greedy!
You don't buy DRM music, you subscribe to a service. I buy CDs for DRM free music that I own, but I subscribed to Yahoo Unlimited to listen to random stuff while on the road.
Why? Because that $15 CD has only 10 songs on it, while my $13/month subscription has 100s of thousands of songs available...
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the source code that was used in the Benchmark. I do find his results about string handling dubious especially when he claims Java is actually faster than C. I really would like to see his code. Of course string benchmarks means squat, and I mean that in a good way (smile). If the benchmark was to allocate a string buffer assign it a value, and then change its value by inserting a substring, I could see Java being faster but not because of its op-code execution speed but how Java designers handle strings as immutable objects, cleaning up the dereferenced original values after execution. C, on the other hand, does exactly as it is told. Of course you can't upscale a string benchmark to a system benchmark...
I also prefer Java, but only because I am more familiar with it than Objective C. It is my understanding that Objective-C 2.0 does have garbage collection. Personally I don't particularly care for garbage collection (I work with resource limited devices most of the time) and do like to be able to clean up my own mess as soon as I want to. I am able to gracefully perform garbage collection with J2ME, but only after experimentally figuring out where to manually invoke garbage collection during "cut-scenes" and sneaking in a garbage collection when the user believes he is actually waiting on the remote server. Admittedly, I use C for 99% of my embedded stuff now, and C++ when there is a need for OOP design.
I can say the same thing about Java and most any interpreted/p-code out there... Maybe I'm misunderstanding the events that you are trying to handle.
You do realize that 99% of Java is dynamically linked. All methods are created to be virtual (makes since it's OO after all), and uses the "final" keyword to make a class more "directly invokable" (final means no more overriding is possible for that class) by reducing the tree of method addresses to a single table. By eliminating the tree searches for the entry point, you do speed up the invocation speed for that method. What you give up is all the nice OOP paradigm that Java has to offer. What you gain is some modularity by being able to use the same block of code / code space within multiple loops. If code space was not a concern, you could simply inline the method and let the compiler optimize it for you. Both ObjC and Java support inlining.
Now if I wanted to "game" a benchmark to promote my favorite language, I could make a simple program with all of its classes marked "final." This makes Java look better on the benchmark, but a proficient programmer would have thought that if he was going to give up all the OOP goodness Java had to offer, he would have written it in C. Technically, ObjC programmers could simply not encapsulate their code in a class, thus producing C code...
Keep in mind that the final trick only works with small code used in benchmarks. Applications that users would want to use would use the SDK and some GUI and that would require dynamic linking...
One final thought. A lot of Java libraries are not "final", otherwise they wouldn't be nice to work with. On the other hand, ObjC takes advantage of the C library which are directly called.
Yes I know. But that is a function of Java class library not of the language itself. I written similar libraries for embedded projects using C++ and any language that supports encapsulation and has support for / or have access to semaphores can easily be made thread safe. My personal favorite use of such objects are FIFOs that transport messages between threads (and processes).
You show benchmarks for Java versus C, python versus C, and only provide conjecture that loosely links ObjC versus Java via Python. Unfortunately, you provide no benchmarks comparing ObjC to Python or more importantly ObjC to Java. You did show references for Java, C, and Python but none for Objective-C
It's refreshing to see someone come to the aid of Java. I like Java (and have used it since forever), but I just don't quite fully believe that Java is "faster" than Objective-C. I really don't know why it should matter...
The really cool thing about Objective-C is that you don't have to compare it's speed with C. You can write actual C code in your application. It looks like you can write your dynamically linked objects in Objective-C (which makes the GUI programming nice at least that's what I've heard) and you can write your bare-metal stuff in C. Java only offers JNI.
OK I'll bite == Keep in mind I am more familiar with Java than Obj-C but here I go:
It is my understanding that Rococoa is a wrapper that allows Java to call Obj-C library routines. I guess this would put it in the same ballpark as IBM's GUI library.
I don't know what you are talking about here. All languages support data structures, and Obj-C is no different. I assume you mean built in library templates, and Java may have an edge here. I don't know how big the edge is, since personally I only use a subset of them and a lot of them are just there for legacy reasons. I would put this more in the realm of JavaSE/ME/EE the environment instead of Java the language. I'm sure it would only be a matter of time that Obj-C has a similar class library, if it isn't good enough already.
As for threading, Obj-C has an atomic attribute, @synchronized attribute, exception handling across threads, NSLock, NSRecursiveLock, NSConditionLock, and Semaphores. As for Java, you have the monitor attribute, synchronized, and event handling. I believe that both languages do adequately support threads. Both languages are subject to the limitation imposed by their host OS. Ok the JVM could perform multitasking in its own time slice, but boy would that suck...
I admit I only have written seriously multithreaded programs in Java (I have little demand for ObjC at the moment), but the Apple documentation seem pretty complete and ObjC has 20 more years of multithreading over Java (smile).
Anyway, I think I hit the crux of the problem being that I've had little demand for ObjC compared to Java. In fact, it is this demand that is forcing Apple to support Java. If the native SDK proves popular and the iPhone/iTouch marketshare continues to grow, I'll probably see less demand for Java and more demand for ObjC. This is what Sun is worried about, and this is the motivation for Sun to make a JVM for the iPhone.
You are the first person I have seen (outside of Sun) that has used "extremely fast" and "java" in the same sentence. Do you have references? I would like to read up on the architectural differences. Objective C can drop down to C, but let's face it the speed factor now-a-days is more academic than practical. To be fair, both languages run fast enough to give a good user experience. I always had my doubts on the effectiveness of benchmarks in arguments like these. I am more of a "the right tool for the job" kinda person. This right tool being, what ever you feel most comfortable programming in.
You are sorta right. The ARM 1176JZF does have built in hardware that is capable of running Java bytecode. It is a Software/Hardware solution called Jazelle. I don't know how easy it would be to incorporate its use into OS X lite. I know it's nice in an embedded JVM environment, but I have no clue on how well it would work in a mach environment. I'm thi
I believe most basements are created to satisfy a requirement of laying a foundation (or footing) a certain distance below the frost line. In the south the frost line is often less than three feet (in my case 4 inches) and basements are only built to satisfy the home owner's desire for more usable space.
Since cellars suffer mold problems in the warm and moist climate in the south, it is rare that a house has one down here.
I forgot where I originally heard this explanation...
Yea and Symbian is a great OS to program within, The WiFi capabilities of the other smart phones are up-to-par, the other smartphones have a growing market share, everyone loves their UI... oh wait scratch that...
Ad hominem attack? No point being made? Troll? A little harsh don't cha think?
BTW, in order for it to be an Ad hominem attack, I would have to say that Virtual Machines are secure because Theo is an idiot. I didn't say that, and I don't think Theo is an idiot.
So let me break it down for you:
My point was that VMware adding a poorly implemented feature called "shared folders" does not invalidate the argument that VM can be used to improve security.
For example, If you chose to not use "shared folders" and instead used network services to access files on the host OS, you would have compartmentalized the risk from vulnerabilities to within the guest OS. You could further mitigate the risk by having automated backups and sane permissions applied to the shared files.
I further repeated my stance that VM (in an enterprise setting) solves an availability problem, and was not really designed for improving security. Security was just a nice byproduct.
I could have said "Your example is just as valid as saying 'Problems and exploits found in Windows are perfect examples of why using an operating system to run application software within a given hardware platform is a bad idea'." But that would have been silly, and not have added anything to the conversation but a smartass example of how one buggy VM doesn't invalidate all VMs.
I didn't attack Theo. I pointed out that Theo wasn't lambasted for his criticism of VM as a way of improving security, instead he was lambasted for the way the topic came about. Asking if you were Theo was a humorous jab...
Anyway, the "lambasting" was like this fictional exchange between Jack, Jill and their peers (I know it's a silly oversimplification):
Jack: Cardboard boxes make crappy apple pies!
Jill: Of course, cardboard boxes make crappy apple pies. We didn't make the boxes to put in the pie, we made them so we can carry more than one pie at a time.
Jack: Well I heard that some people were using cardboard boxes to make apple pies, and I wanted to voice my concern.
Peers: Well Duh. We already knew the proper use of cardboard boxes. Way to keep yourself topical Jack.
No, this is an example of a poor implementation of shared folders. This does not invalidate the use of virtual machines as a security mechanism. However, I will repeat what I said before on this subject: Virtualization solves an availability problem not a security problem.
He was lambasted for creating a controversy that didn't exist just so that he would be mention in the press. Theo is that you?
More like Yellow sno cones, being sold as lemon-aide.
Eskimo: Hey! This doesn't smell right!
Microsoft: Trust us, it's an improved lemon flavor.
While I also believe that Wikipedia shouldn't always be used as an authoritative source, it does have references and it is openly peered reviewed. It's is still an invaluable and handy reference and the accuracy of its older entries do rival those of traditional encyclopedias.
For example, here are the references associated with the parent's wikipedia entry:
That being said, the parent commenter quoted a stated definition of an operating system which I happen to agree with (and it happens to agree with all of my old and new computer texts). You on the other hand countered with an opinion, given within Wikipedia, as evident by the word "views" as in "Free Software Foundation views Linux..." And just because the FSF has this view doesn't necessarily make it fact.
Just for argument sake, let's look at an "authoritative" source like the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
While the M-W dictionary does not give references (kinda hard for a dictionary), it does have a reputation for giving accurate definitions for words used in the english language. This definition correctly applies to the Linux kernel and not the GNU user land tools.
So now we have two authoritative sources that do not support your argument that Linux is incorrectly defined as an operating system.
But wait:
When the references fail to support your view, you turn to popular opinion of slashdot.
And just in case popular opinion fails you, let's talk about what is normally meant when "operating system" is used by the average person and not by its technical definition.
I know I won't be able to change your opinion, but please let this comment serve to remind you that this is a trivial controversy brought on by an organization that feels like it is being slighted. While the software that FSF wrote does add value to Linux (and other more proprietary OSs), the kernel and most of the popular distributions surrounding that kernel, chose not to include GNU in the name. Therefore, not matter how much you may want everybody to say "GNU/Linux" this would be more than technically inaccurate due the fact that it was not named that way by its creators.
In other news, EMACS (which until very recently was maintained by RMS himself) is named EMACS and not GNU/EMACS... film at eleven.
I think you are the one that is "dead wrong" and basing your opinion on a stereotype. (You may want to cut down on the number of court room dramas you watch on TV)
Yes, it is true the prosecution will strike the jurors who may be sympathetic to the defense, and the defense attorney will strike the jurors who may have strong opinions but neither party can strike the whole jury pool. The theory being that the jurors left over will be fair and impartial. I don't know about your state, but where I'm at it is very difficult to be excused from a jury. The judge presiding over the jury pool here is a hard ass and nothing short of being extremely ill or a death of an immediate family member will get you excused. I served 3 times (and seem to been picked after I voted in the last election -- coincidence? ) in the past 20 years. On the first day, the juror pool would be 3/4 full, however the local sheriffs department is nice enough to remind those that were absent and on the second day the room is packed to the gills.
I served in a pool with physicists, small business owners, nurses, office managers, engineers, and young professionals. You would think that the jury room would have just as many stay-at-home mothers or unemployed people, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It could be statistics or the fact that most "nonthinking deadbeats" in my community don't bother to register to vote.
An example of how much of a hard ass our judge was:
My county is located on the state line and a good percentage of our population work out of state near the military bases. In my jury pool we had three out-of-state workers and being out-of-state they were not covered by a state law that provided wage guarantees while serving jury duty. They tried to be excused due to the hardships associated with having an out-of-state employer but failed and spent their week being a juror for $10 a day.
This is just plain silly. Of course the defense would like to have jurors that would be stupid enough to give an acquittal no matter the amount of blatantly obvious evidence and a trial of a former football player proves that occasionally the defense gets their wish. However, it is in the best interest of the prosecution to have a fair trail that can survive appeal. As far as the judge is concerned, he is supposed to be an impartial referee. Of course there are horrible judges (football player), but I believe they are the exception and not the rule...
Crap. Not the old "GNU/Linux" argument. I'm sorry the operating system is called "Linux" and the more popular Linux distributions are called Redhat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Debian. No matter how many times this is argued, things will not change. The GPL does not dictate that we prefix all GPL programs with "GNU", and neither Linus nor the distribution creators choose to use "GNU" in their names so tough luck.
BTW, while we are being a little technical here. Operating System is charged with processing system data, user input, provide an API to hardware devices, and similar activities that falls within the domain of the kernel. The GNU utilities are user land tools that help the user manage resources and configure the kernel. So to be more precise, the operating system is called Linux and the resulting distributions that contain GNU utilities are called Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, etc...
This is why everybody calls the OS Linux for the past 15 or so years.
True. That was a campaign promise that has yet to be fulfilled. To be fair, they tried multiple times and faced a presidential veto and filibustering from the republicans.
Personally, I feel that we need to stay until we have a good exit strategy. An unconditional pullout is stupid! Pulling out before a stable government has been established will create another rogue state that will further destabilize the region.
Because everyone looked back and saw how the republicans did not accomplish any real legislative goals during the impeachment shenanigans, and probably felt that their interests would be better served by fulfilling their campaign promises during the first 100 days.
The republican grand standing during the Clinton years, did way more harm than good. It polarized all political thinking, generated grid lock in the legislative branch, and the federal government actually shut-down a couple of times due to a lack of a budget. Just because the republicans care more about their agenda than what's good for the country, doesn't mean the democrats should fall in that same trap...
No you did not, and I did not mean to imply that you did.
I was addressing the "mis-characterization" by assuming that you were implying that my one-liner was trivializing the issue at hand, and therefore expanded my line of thinking...
But the quote that you replied with:
does get to the heart of the matter. The grand-parent post to this discussions was:
So I assumed you where in the same line of thought as the grand parent.
Sorry for the confusion.
I've haven't mischaracterized anything.
My point being that the republicans slowed legislation to a crawl and caused a media frenzy over the Clinton impeachment. It is these SAME republican congressmen that demanded the full respect of congress during the impeachment (over a blowjob) of Clinton, that are actively turning a blind eye toward the Bush administration. They are walking out protesting that congress is over-stepping their bounds when it comes to forcing the Bush administration to abide by our laws over REAL issues, but they are the ones that created the precedence during the previous administration.
We all know that the impeachment and the Kenneth Star investigation were nothing but a fishing expedition to take away executive privilege from President Clinton. Ironically, it is this same executive privilege that they are trying to reinforce in a attempt to keep President Bush in power.
Or did you mean that the impeachment was more about lying to congress than about an extra-marital affair? Hmmm. A funny thing happened during the Bush administration, when Libby lied under oath about the Valarie Plame leak. Let's look in Wikipedia about how the current administration handled it:
"On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."
So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?
First of all, Rush disclosed his disability before the drug scandal erupted. Secondly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Boo hoo! I have a hearing problem too, so where's my oxycotin? He lost all creditability with me when he proved once and for all that he is just good old radio entertainer named Rusty masquerading as a conservative radio show wind bag.
Why would he? Eating crow isn't something you want to do on a regular basis. So what he's a saint because he got caught being a hypocrite and he prefers to lay low and hope the controversy eventually blows over?
Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?
Et tu RMS?
Seriously, RMS is outspoken enough for others to put the Free Software Movement into practice. Linus has done just as much for GNU by managing an open source project that attracted the attention of the computing powerhouses, as RMS has done by dueling windmills. Linus is the Yin, to RMS's Yang. Without a concrete demonstration of a successful open source project, RMS would be nothing more than an obscure footnote in MIT history. Without RMS' vision and passion about GNU, Linus' project would be just another free implementation of a unix like operating system.
Before anyone gets too offended, RMS started GNU in 1983 and GNU really didn't become a "household word" until people had a product to identify with it. Evidently a nice editor, compiler, debugger, and some unix command replacements weren't enough. Lucky for us, Linus chose to license his work as GPL.
Not only that, the POP server works too. I've been using Apple mail (and thunderbird on the other machine) to check my hotmail (msn) accounts for a long while..
Sounds like the article writer should have gotten off his high horse and asked what was involved in getting hotmail to work with Outlook express.
Instead he throws a tantrum like a little child...
Excellent point.
This would have made Apple's position even worse. IBM would be more inclined to favor the higher profit margin/higher production run for console manufacture, than the endless performance upgrades demanded by general computing. This has always been Intel's strength.
This is not IBM's fault. Intel knew early on that the way to sell more chips was to create business/production model that depended on making the current product obsolete with the next product release.
IBM designed both the Xenon Multicore CPU for Microsoft and the Cell CPU for Sony. Both are base on the PowerPC. Chartered Manufacturing is doing the fabrication work for the Xenon, and the Cell CPU is being fabricated in house at the East Fish Kill, New York facility.
My point still remains that IBM has failed to meet production/design demands in the past, and if Apple stayed with IBM they would have to compete with the game console market - More so with Sony than with Microsoft.
There is a difference between being able to PRODUCE processors and being able to SUPPLY the cell processors. There have been more than a few occasions where Macintosh sales were hurt from CPU shortages.
With Sony and Microsoft buying these cell processors to supply a growing game console market, would Apple even have a chance?
Intel scored huge points with their ability to guaranty enough chips are available, and they sealed the deal by demonstrating their ability to customize the Core 2 Duo to meet product requirements. On the other hand, IBM couldn't even keep Apple happily supplied with G5s...
Not to mention, being a member of the x86 family has its advantages: Software, OS options, cheaper prices, competing suppliers (That are large enough)...
Ha ha. I'm just responding to your comment. I'm neither angry nor a troll.
You did more than that. You chimed in with your opinion about subscription music. Remember?
And then you insulted the original poster (emphasis mine):
Is it coming back to you?
So now that you have exhausted your mental facilities, you now resort to name calling... nice!
You don't buy DRM music, you subscribe to a service. I buy CDs for DRM free music that I own, but I subscribed to Yahoo Unlimited to listen to random stuff while on the road.
Why? Because that $15 CD has only 10 songs on it, while my $13/month subscription has 100s of thousands of songs available...
Why oh why can you understand? ;)