Linked by Christopher W. Cowell-Shah on Thu 8th Jan 2004 19:33 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



@Raynier
You see, the primitive/class distinction in Java is largely unnecessary. It is entirely possible for a powerful compiler to determine what should be boxed and what should not. Powerful CL/Scheme/Dylan/ML/Smalltalk compilers do such analysis. So in these languages, there are no primitive types. Everything seems to be a full object on the heap. The compiler will take care of doing things like stack-allocating variables when no references to it escape the function, or unbox an object when it can be determined that it is safe to do so.
You can add C# into that mix too.
@LinuxBuddy
One of my biggest pet peeves about java has always been no unsigned. It might not seem like a big deal to a lot of people but for what I was doing, I ended up doing a lot bit-masking to get things done, as you stated. C# has unsigneds. C# also has the auto-boxing as Raynier mentioned.
I would like to see comparison between MS c# and Java(I guess you could add Mono and Pnet into the mix too) to see how well they optimize out bounds checking and also see what kind of a performance hit each takes from it.