Hi DanH, Your luck that this is not a J2EE forum. Their are ton's of 7x24h applications based on sun's vm running day by day for years. The last years I worked mostly with the jrockit vm from bea ( now oracle) in such a highly parallel environment with up to several hundred transaction per second. In our enviroment the parallel GC was never a problem and we need to allocate and free several GB in a short time.
Maybe you simply made some bad experiences with IBM stuff ? Good luck ! Frank On 3 Aug., 15:07, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > Well, none of Sun's implementations are concurrent -- they all force > the application to stop for a time. They're not generally well- > designed for LARGE applications (eg, a fast 8-way running a heavy > transaction system), or anything with really stringent response time > requirements. The IBM iSeries Java implementation ran rings around > Sun's, and the newer IBM portable Java implementation runs rings > around the iSeries implementation. > > One of the problems with Sun's GC scheme is the vast number of > parameters -- no one understands them, or how to set them for a given > set of circumstances (especially if those circumstances vary > dynamically). > > On Aug 2, 9:57 pm, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: > > > > > OT, but I'll bite. > > > What do you consider a really good GC setup? > > > Sun's GC is good enough that I would hesitate to make blanket > > statements that it is better than X or worse than X. (Though I will > > say that the newer Sun GC implementations are clearly better than the > > older ones). There are a lot of different parameters to evaluate a GC > > by -- and not just CPU overhead. > > > I don't ask in order to dispute your choice, BTW -- just to understand > > what you're considering a good GC and why -- and perhaps learn of a > > really good GC I don't know about! > > > (It's been a while, but I've implemented, debugged, and maintained a > > number of GCs over the years, and worked with many of the true > > pioneers in the field of GC. So you can see why I'm curious). > > > On Aug 2, 12:53 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > "(don't get me started on GC based languages)" > > > > I know it's off-topic, but I have to say something. Having done large > > > applications in both I much prefer GCed languages (provided the GC is > > > well implemented). More robust and less overhead (yes, faster), with > > > fewer ways for the programmer to shoot himself in the foot. > > > (Unfortunately, Sun's GC implementations are only mediocre, so it's > > > possible you've never seen a really good GC setup.) > > > > On Aug 1, 2:33 pm, RichardC <richard.crit...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > My background is C and C++ ... 25 years and no longer counting :) > > > > > So I had some ingrained expectations when I started learning Java; > > > > amongst them was the expectation that the Java language would support > > > > conditional compliation. > > > > > I have had to learn to live without conditional compliation. The only > > > > area where I really miss having a lanugage constuct like "#ifdef" is > > > > when I need to remove instrumentation and/or debugging code. I now > > > > write less of this type of code and try to remember to mark what I do > > > > wite with a "remove me" comment, which gets picked up by the Eclipse > > > > to-do list. I then remove it during my pre-QA code review. > > > > > I have yet to feel the need to use conditional compilation to deal > > > > with the often quoted "platform fragmentation" as the differences in > > > > the platforms mostly impacts the amout of time I spend testing and I > > > > have yet to write ANY code that differs by supported hardware. Using > > > > the resource qualifiers has been all I have needed to do so far. > > > > > I still don't like some aspects of the Java language (don't get me > > > > started on GC based languages) but Android is much more than just a > > > > language and writing off a complete platform for one feature you > > > > consider missing is very strange position to take. > > > > > On Jul 31, 11:09 pm, sblantipodi <perini.dav...@dpsoftware.org> wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry for my rude and really not too much kind speaking, > > > > > but I can't belive that android doesn't support preprocessor. > > > > > > I can't think on mobile programming without preprocessor, too many > > > > > different configurations, > > > > > think only to LVL and android market and preprocessor could be > > > > > useful... > > > > > Ok we can live without it, but codes becomes really unelegant... > > > > > Sincerely I really don't like the non preprocessor way but > > > > > unfortunantly, > > > > > masses told that android is good and I need to develop on it :) > > > > > > On Jul 31, 10:58 pm, TreKing <treking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:00 PM, sblantipodi > > > > > > <perini.dav...@dpsoftware.org>wrote: > > > > > > > > How can you develop on a mobile without preprocessing? > > > > > > > Quite easily, actually. > > > > > > > > Sure android is really good for fart app, but what else? > > > > > > > Is this is a serious question? Have you browsed through the Android > > > > > > Market > > > > > > (as painful as that is)? There's a lot more out there than "fart > > > > > > apps". > > > > > > > > I don't want to troll but I really can't understand why I heard > > > > > > > many developers saying "viva android" when google released the > > > > > > > first buggy > > > > > > > SDK. > > > > > > > Probably simply because it's an alternative to iPhone. > > > > > > > Now, someone with your experience developing for so many devices > > > > > > can surely > > > > > > adapt to not having a preprocessor. It's good for many things but > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > not a necessity and will certainly not cripple you when making an > > > > > > Android > > > > > > App. > > > > > > > If you're personally that attached to having a preprocessor, no one > > > > > > is > > > > > > forcing you to develop on Android. > > > > > > > Good luck. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > TreKing <http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking> - > > > > > > Chicago > > > > > > transit tracking app for Android-powered devices- Zitierten Text > > > > > > ausblenden - > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
