On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 09:16:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 08:46:32 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 10:55 +0000, Paulo Pinto via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
The JVM JIT was originally targeted to SELF, not Java.
I think you'll find HotSpot evolved from a Smalltalk JIT
originally.
Borland and Semantec had JVM JITs as well, Sun even licenced
the
Semantec one for a while.
[…]
Functional programming languages have AOT compilers and they
perform quite well, almost to C level in many use case cases.
True. Java/JVM/JIT also performs very well surpassing C in
many cases.
Indeed C++ surpasses C in many cases as well.
I am suspicious. I understand that a situation can be contrived
such that C will lose, but in normal, sensible code the only
language I've ever seen reliably beat C is FORTRAN.
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/
There's no good reason for C to beat C++. Even if there were, it
would be simple to rewrite the C++ bottleneck in C style.
Likewise, there's no good reason for C to beat D either.
I was surprised by the Java results once they started beating C
at certain benchmarks years ago. But the fact is it does.
Atila
