Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Jul 2009 10:45 UTC
Mono Project Mono from SVN is now able to use LLVM as a backend for code generation in addition to Mono's built-in JIT compiler. "This allows Mono to benefit from all of the compiler optimizations done in LLVM. For example the SciMark score goes from 482 to 610. This extra performance comes at a cost: it consumes more time and more memory to JIT compile using LLVM than using Mono's built-in JIT, so it is not a solution for everyone. Long running desktop applications like Banshee and Gnome-Do want to keep memory usage low and also would most likely not benefit from better code generation. Our own tests show that ASP.NET applications do not seem to benefit very much (but web apps are inherently IO-bound). But computationally intensive applications will definitely benefit from this. Financial and scientific users will surely appreciate this performance boost."
Thread beginning with comment 374047
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by Slambert666 on Sat 18th Jul 2009 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Slambert666
Member since:
2008-10-30

Yes, contrary to Mono, Java is everywhere.

There are Java implementations for:

- BlueRay players;
- Mobiles;
- Embeded systems (Cars, Ricoh copy manchines, Factory robots, and so on);
- All major OS;


Well you probably do not mean Java but JDK implementations. Unfortunately these implementations are often incompatible with each other etc etc. One could say that java tries to stretch the usefulness of the jvm so much that it is good at nothing. It is especially lacking as a systems programming language, something that mono excels at.

And lets not forget that only the C# compiler and CLR are patent free, given the latest Microsoft announcement.

So with Java I have access to the complete library coming with the JVM, while with Mono I am restricted to the language and basic library.


Since you are in the mood to spread some FUD,I will counter with that now Oracle is in charge of Java how long do you think that it is going to stay free?
My guess is probably not for long.
Soon your Java stuff will only be able to run on $100K oracle app server :-)

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by kaiwai on Sun 19th Jul 2009 04:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well you probably do not mean Java but JDK implementations. Unfortunately these implementations are often incompatible with each other etc etc. One could say that java tries to stretch the usefulness of the jvm so much that it is good at nothing. It is especially lacking as a systems programming language, something that mono excels at.


How can they be incompatible if they pass the required tests to call themselves Java? if you're talking about proprietary extensions specific to a given implementation or libraries out side the specification then of course there will be incompatibilities - but that is only relevant if you're stupid enough to use those parts outside the official Java specification.

Since you are in the mood to spread some FUD


How the hell is that FUD? if you want assurance of being immune from patent claims then you have to stick to the ECMA stack - you don't have access to Winforms, asp.net, ADO.net and so forth. But hey, lying for you is a second language given you're versed in because you can't face the facts and speak the truth.

I will counter with that now Oracle is in charge of Java how long do you think that it is going to stay free?


Based on what evidence - the code is all GPL'ed, how can they release code under GPL then pull it back? they might decide not give it a free compatibility test but who gives a toss, call it 'chocolate mochachino with cream on top' and people will still consider it a Java implementation.

My guess is probably not for long.


Which is based on a nothing. The difference between you and I - I actually read some damn stuff before posting on this forum; I know the difference between the Microsoft arrangement which pertains to the ECMA implementation and the Java working group where people can freely implement it but cannot call it Java unless it has been certified. But then again, lying is your forte.

Soon your Java stuff will only be able to run on $100K oracle app server :-)


And that is supposed to be funny?

Edited 2009-07-19 04:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by Delgarde on Sun 19th Jul 2009 21:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Based on what evidence - the code is all GPL'ed, how can they release code under GPL then pull it back? they might decide not give it a free compatibility test but who gives a toss, call it 'chocolate mochachino with cream on top' and people will still consider it a Java implementation.


Well, no - that certified compatibility is important. If a platform has a certified JVM implementation available, as a developer I can confidently say our product will run on it. If all it has is something Java-ish, I assure you, I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. Too much chance of something going wrong, and me having to support it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

We've moved more or less our entire Java app stack (about 100 units) from Solaris to Linux, 32bit to 64bit, Java 1.5 to Java 1.5, Sun JVM to IBM JVM, more or less without big problems even though the amount of changes underneath the "Java app world" is dramatic.

Now please give me a similar example from the .NET world.

...

And?

...

No example? I thought so ..

Edited 2009-07-19 10:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1