On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 at 16:53 -0600, Bryan Sant wrote: > Java is neither slow, nor a memory hog. The slow reputation is pretty
I'll give you that Java is fast enough once started, but startup time is abysmal. And I don't care what you say, Java IS a memory hog. I don't need some web article to debunk what I can see day in and day out on top and ps. I fight at least once or twice a week with RAM issues on my box, and this I know for sure: life would be so much easier if I just broke down and bought more RAM, I should really run about half as many services, my wife really shouldn't leave firefox, openoffice, and thunderbird open all the time (unless we get more RAM), and the one java program I run is always #1 in memory usage unless firefox is on one of its RAM kicks. Is that one program a memory hog? Well, maybe. But when I compare empirical evidence from other java programs I've run and monitored in the past I'm more likely to blame java. > much debunked. The memory hog reputation still needs some light on > it. Read here: > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/xiaobinlu/archive/2005/08/perception_real_1.html I know how to read my top and ps output, and I know the pitfalls. I know about memory mapping and shared memory and all that. It is all taken into consideration in my statements above. -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
