"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.449.1282374676.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Friday 20 August 2010 22:52:37 Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.444.1282368222.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> > I expect that your typical desktop application would do far better >> > performance-wise when written in Java than Eclipse has done. But either >> > because >> > Java isn't generally good enough for application development or because >> > people >> > think that it isn't there don't seem to be very many desktop >> > applications >> > which >> > are written in Java. So, it's hard to say. >> >> The best C/C++ <-> Java application comparison I can think of >> off-the-top-of-my-head would be uTorrent and Azureus (That's the actual >> Azureus, not Vuze - I don't care what the creators claim, Vuze is a >> *completely* different program.) uTorrent and Azureus are >> nearly-identical >> in purpose, features and UI. uTorrent is smooth as silk. Azureus is a bit >> sluggish (certainly not Eclipse sluggish, but no where near uTorrent). >> uTorrent is C/C++. Azureus is Java. >> >> And just overall, the majority of responsive, non-bloaty software I've >> used >> *has* been natively-compiled stuff. The majority of sluggish, bloated >> software I've used has been some form of interpreted code or VM, such as >> JVM or .NET. So even if we're comparing apples and oranges, if Farm A >> makes apples that are usually juicy and sweet, and Farm B makes oranges >> that usually aren't, I'm going to feel fairly confident in saying that >> Farm A kicks Farm B's ass. > > Those seem to be reasonable comparisons. Of course, you don't choose Java > or > .NET because it gets you efficient code (though you'd probably like > efficient code). > You use them for reasons like fast development time and (for Java at > least) > portability. The gains in maintenance and development time are easily > large > enough to justify the loss in efficiency on many (perhaps even most) > software > projects. Of course, there are projects where Java and .NET don't cut it, > but > they often do. Hopefully D will prove to be a solution with development > benefits > on par with Java and .NET and efficiency benefits on par with C++. >
Yup. Good points. If it weren't for D, and I had to use C or C++ for native-code apps, I wouldn't hesitate at using a .NET or JVM language for whatever projects I could.
