On 13-Mar-2003, David Jeske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can see how the anti-benchmarking clause was important to the MS > lawyers, because if an article was published showing a brand new .NET > runtime slower than the 5 year old JVM technology, readers would not > respect the newness of .NET. In reality, the legal people should have > talked to the technical people and realized that nearly all MS.NET > vs. Java benchmarks ALREADY come out with .NET on top
All the benchmarks you've seen, you mean? Don't you think it is possible that the benchmark results that you have seen are skewed, because of the .NET license condition? Also, Java is not the only competition. In performance comparisons with native code, .NET is going to come off worse. The question is how much worse. Furthermore, the answer may be different for different programming styles or different programming languages. One of .NET's big selling points is that it supports multiple programming languages. However, if you get a 1000-times slow down for non-C#-like languages, that claim is a bit of a sham, isn't it? It's all very well to say that you can use other languages, but if the performance of .NET for those other languages is prohibitively bad, people will prefer to compile those other languages to native code. -- Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp. _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
