Stefano Lanzavecchia wrote: >> The Java solution was impressive in timing for an interpreted >> language. > > "Interpreted"? Common implementation of JavaScript are interpreted. Most > implementation of Java are compiled, as far as I know... > Most implementations of Java (e.g. Sun's) compile the source to bytecode for a virtual machine, which is subsequently interpreted on the target machine. While JIT compilers have improved performance, I do not completely buy the argument that they are as fast as native compilers. With this execution model, startup is always slower.
There are some features of Java, such as thread safety, which introduce abstraction penalties not related to interpretation, and which are hard to avoid. I would still argue that Java is slower than C for most purposes. John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
