digitalmars.D - GCJ vs. D
- Jeremy (12/12) Mar 30 2006 What do you think:
- David Medlock (14/31) Mar 30 2006 If you were going to develop a 3D game, or a new scripting language, or
- Kyle Furlong (2/42) Mar 30 2006
- David Medlock (6/57) Mar 31 2006 If they were trivial I wouldnt have even mentioned them.
- Hong (6/18) Mar 30 2006 I am doubtful that GCJ can close the gap much further
- Tom (10/36) Mar 30 2006 I'm a Java detractor in general (I do Java for some tasks where I work)....
What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?
Mar 30 2006
Jeremy wrote:What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?If you were going to develop a 3D game, or a new scripting language, or some other low level software D beats Java easily. Not only that, D is superior as a language to Java, IMO. See: news://news.digitalmars.com:119/dvreco$hf1$1 digitaldaemon.com Java's templates are an absolute joke. For about 30% more typing we get homogenous containers and no casting in generic methods. Whoopee, Sun. They added aspects but shot down DBC. They still do not have any workable type inference at all. It took 10 years to add primitive boxing. The only place they win is support, users knowledgeable in the platform, and tools. -DavidM
Mar 30 2006
David Medlock wrote:Jeremy wrote:These three things are *NOT* trivial. They are actually essential to the success of the language.What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?If you were going to develop a 3D game, or a new scripting language, or some other low level software D beats Java easily. Not only that, D is superior as a language to Java, IMO. See: news://news.digitalmars.com:119/dvreco$hf1$1 digitaldaemon.com Java's templates are an absolute joke. For about 30% more typing we get homogenous containers and no casting in generic methods. Whoopee, Sun. They added aspects but shot down DBC. They still do not have any workable type inference at all. It took 10 years to add primitive boxing. The only place they win is support, users knowledgeable in the platform, and tools.-DavidM
Mar 30 2006
David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> Kyle Furlong wrote:David Medlock wrote:If they were trivial I wouldnt have even mentioned them. Support requires money and an organization to take responsibility. Users knowledge is chicken-and-egg with the language popularity. Tools require, well, people to write them. -DavidMJeremy wrote:These three things are *NOT* trivial. They are actually essential to the success of the language.What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?If you were going to develop a 3D game, or a new scripting language, or some other low level software D beats Java easily. Not only that, D is superior as a language to Java, IMO. See: news://news.digitalmars.com:119/dvreco$hf1$1 digitaldaemon.com Java's templates are an absolute joke. For about 30% more typing we get homogenous containers and no casting in generic methods. Whoopee, Sun. They added aspects but shot down DBC. They still do not have any workable type inference at all. It took 10 years to add primitive boxing. The only place they win is support, users knowledgeable in the platform, and tools.-DavidM
Mar 31 2006
I am doubtful that GCJ can close the gap much further This page gives very good analysis on why Java is so damn slow, bytecode + VM is not the only reason (which is the only one that GCJ removed). http://www.jelovic.com/articles/why_java_is_slow.htm Hong In article <e0hvns$l0r$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jeremy says...What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?
Mar 30 2006
I'm a Java detractor in general (I do Java for some tasks where I work). Though I really hate it very much because of it slowness (among other aspects), I'll have to say that the article is far from been made upon good scientific methods. Not so serious IMO. Don't get me wrong, I totally sympathize with the article but if I'd have to embrace a serious position, I'd have to say it's too _light_ to be persuasive and satisfying. -- Tom; Hong escribió:I am doubtful that GCJ can close the gap much further This page gives very good analysis on why Java is so damn slow, bytecode + VM is not the only reason (which is the only one that GCJ removed). http://www.jelovic.com/articles/why_java_is_slow.htm Hong In article <e0hvns$l0r$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jeremy says...What do you think: GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD? My thoughts: * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the gap * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both worlds) * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI) * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice... I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java compiler is making good progress...?
Mar 30 2006