Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Oct 2005 18:40 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 42379
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-08
By the way, here are some tests I ran myself. I did not write the code, but I compiled it myself on my system. Tell me again that the benchmarks conclude Java is slow?
In the following tests, Java outperforms C on every test except for the "life" test. Tests were conducted with mingw gcc 3.4.2 on WinXP using -O2 optimization, and Java 1.5.0_04. Bigger numbers are better for all tests. Tests are averages throughout a range of sizes / numbers:
Fast Fourier Transform: C: 521.9 | Java: 528.4
Fibonacci: C: 249.6 | Java: 372.9
Life: C: 288.1 | Java: 150.8
Infilife: C: 359.1 | Java: 434.9
Again, in all tests with the exception of the Life test, Java performed better than C.