Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Oct 2005 18:40 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Java Programmers agonize over whether to allocate on the stack or on the heap. Some people think garbage collection will never be as efficient as direct memory management, and others feel it is easier to clean up a mess in one big batch than to pick up individual pieces of dust throughout the day. This article pokes some holes in the oft-repeated performance myth of slow allocation in JVMs.
Permalink for comment 42353
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

"Anyway, the shootout results do not seem to be that unrealistic. Show me the (unflawed) benchmarks that indicate that Java could be faster than C++."

http://www.kano.net/javabench/

The author indicates which tests he used, what operating system he performed the tests on, and what optimization settings he used for both GCC and Java. Java outperformed GCC in many of the cases.

Another study showed that on a standard bubble short, Java outperforms GCC even when GCC has all optimizations turned on.

In their paper "Benchmarking Java against C and Fortran for Scientific Applications", J.M. Bull, et al. from the Edinburgh Parallel Computing Center found that Java performance was always within 20% of the same algorithims written in C or FORTRAN. The authors concluded that "On Intel Pentium hardware, especially with Linux, the performance gap is small enough to be of little or no concern to programmers." In this same test, Java actually outpeformed some C compilers.

So now tell me again that I am ignoring empirical results. You call me a Java zealot, but it sounds more to me like you are one of the Java haters, who will accept the results of any benchmark, no matter how flawed that benchmark is, to support your assertion that Java is slower than C++.

Reply Parent Score: 1