I'm not voting if slow is ok or not.. just reflection on how Java was originally very slow but it still took hold in enterprise. But that's not to say that expectations are the same today... As you point out, I don't really know what i'm saying.. :)
On Sep 4, 10:31 pm, sherod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by that (ie, do you mean it was, or it > wasn't) > > I recall that "Starting Java..." was a cause of much groaning when > Netscape 2 came out and I met my first applets :) > > Even now "Java is Slow" is the reaction from most rank and file people > who aren't Java people, for example: > > Most of the PHP dev & unix admin team at my last job, a Windows > sysadmin I was talking to whilst I was troubleshooting a MS-SQL > connectivity issue with JDBC (last week) and the business owner of my > current project (until we worked hard to resolve their concerns). > > Its a conversation I get tired of having. *sigh* > > On Sep 4, 3:17 pm, Christian Catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > How much of an issue was Java's speed when it first appeared? :) > > > On Sep 4, 2:24 pm, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think invokedynamic can help, but with dynamic languages, they will > > > be able to approach statically compiled ones - certainly for long > > > running server apps they could get as fast I think, in the long run > > > (as the JITting kicks in). > > > > Lots of research has been and is being done in this area, so I would > > > think over time the perfomance difference would become a non issue, > > > but at the moment, like you say, it certainly is an issue. > > > > On Sep 4, 11:42 am, Alan Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I was doing some web surfing trying to find information on Groovy, Scala > > > > etc from a performance perspective. I hear lots of Groovy people saying > > > > "its the next generation replacement for Java" sort of statements, but > > > > all the performance benchmarks I have come across show code similar to > > > > the Java replacement to be many times slower. Scala seems to do a lot > > > > better as it was statically typed. I can see Groovy being useful as a > > > > scripting language (top level gluing things together). Performance-wise > > > > I cannot see it ever being a serious Java replacement. Useful along > > > > side? Yes. Replacement? No. > > > > > I was wondering what experiences or knowledge others had in this area? > > > > Is the performance difference because the JVM was optimized for static > > > > languages? Is adding "Invoke Dynamic" to the JVM going to fix this > > > > problem, or just get it closer to Java performance? That is, is the > > > > performance penalty fixable? I assume all the dynamically typed > > > > languages will suffer from the same basic problem. > > > > > Personally it feels like Groovy is a great scripting language to use > > > > with Java, but as soon as someone starts claiming its the clear > > > > replacement to Java I start to tune out. > > > > > Alan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
