On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:13, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > Then again JavaOS was an abortion on top of Slowaris. [...]
>
> This is a false statemenet, Rob. It was an abortion, all right,
> but not related to Solaris in any way at all.
I worked on the sucker for six months at IBM in 1997. I don't
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, the very concept of Java encourages not caring about
> > "performance, system-design or any elegance whatsoever".
> The same arguments were made 30 years ago about writing the OS in a high
> level language like C rather than in raw assembly.
> > I have seen school projects with interfaces done in java (to be 'portable')
>> and you could go to have a coffee while a menu pulled down.
>
>Yeah, but the slowness there comes from the phrase "school project" and not
>the phrase "done in java". I've seen menuing interfaces on a 1 mhz
Rob Landley writes:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:53, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>> Mike Harrold wrote:
>> super computing, hmm what about some PowerPC CPU variant - they very
>> compettetiv in terms of cost and FPU performance! Transmeta isn't the
>> adequate choice here.
>
> You honestly think you
Rob Landley writes:
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:53, Martin Dalecki wrote:
Mike Harrold wrote:
super computing, hmm what about some PowerPC CPU variant - they very
compettetiv in terms of cost and FPU performance! Transmeta isn't the
adequate choice here.
You honestly think you can fit
I have seen school projects with interfaces done in java (to be 'portable')
and you could go to have a coffee while a menu pulled down.
Yeah, but the slowness there comes from the phrase school project and not
the phrase done in java. I've seen menuing interfaces on a 1 mhz commodore
64
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the very concept of Java encourages not caring about
performance, system-design or any elegance whatsoever.
The same arguments were made 30 years ago about writing the OS in a high
level language like C rather than in raw assembly.
30 years
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:13, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
Then again JavaOS was an abortion on top of Slowaris. [...]
This is a false statemenet, Rob. It was an abortion, all right,
but not related to Solaris in any way at all.
I worked on the sucker for six months at IBM in 1997. I don't know
Russell Leighton wrote:
> The lack of a good operating system _dependent_ interface
> makes running fast hard in Java when you need to do IO...
> yes, there is always JNI so you can add a little C to mmap a file or whatever,
JDK 1.4 beta comes with a way to memory-map files, and various
other
> Then again JavaOS was an abortion on top of Slowaris. [...]
This is a false statemenet, Rob. It was an abortion, all right,
but not related to Solaris in any way at all.
JavaOS existed in two flavours minimum, which had very little
in common. The historically first of them (Luna), was a
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:07, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On 20010620 Rob Landley wrote:
> What do you worry about caches if every bytecode turns into a jump and more
> code ?
'cause the jump may be overlappable with extra execution cores in RISC and
VLIW?
I must admit, I've never actually
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:53, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Mike Harrold wrote:
>
> Well the transmeta cpu isn't cheap actually.
Any processor's cheap once it's got enough volume. That's an effect not a
cause.
> And if you talk about
> super computing, hmm what about some PowerPC CPU variant -
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:27, Mike Harrold wrote:
> Martin Dalecki wrote:>
>
> > Blah blah blah. The performance of the Transmeta CPU SUCKS ROCKS. No
> > matter
> > what they try to make you beleve. A venerable classical desing like
> > the Geode outperforms them in any terms. There is simple
> This is exactly the reason why Transmetians love to
> showcase DVD playing and other performance related
> stuff - it is where they beat Geode. Geode's performance
> is quite adequate for kiosk/POS app and it's a formiddable
Geode is jut about capable of MPEG1. The VIA processors are extremely
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:12:29AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> When was the last time you wrote a large cross-platform GUI that just
> worked on other platforms, without any additional tweaking, after you
> developed it on your Linux machine?
I'd say that would be the last time I wrote something
> This [code morphing and binary tranlation]
> was set off to provide compensation for the biggest hurdle
> of VLIW design - insane code size and partially huge memmory
> bus bandwidth designs due to this. (Why do you think the itanim
> sucks on integer performance?)
First, Merced does not suck
Mike Harrold wrote:
> So what? Crusoe isn't designed for use in supercomputers. It's designed
> for use in laptops where the user is running an email reader, a web
> browser, a word processor, and where the user couldn't give a cr*p about
> performance as long as it isn't noticeable (20% *isn't*
Martin Dalecki wrote:>
> Rob Landley wrote:
>
> > Or if you like the idea of a JIT, think about transmeta writing a code
> > morphing layer that takes java bytecodes. Ditch the VM and have the
> > processor do it in-cache.
>
> Blah blah blah. The performance of the Transmeta CPU SUCKS ROCKS.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> However, the very concept of Java encourages not caring about
> "performance, system-design or any elegance whatsoever". If you cared
> about any of those things you would compile to native code (it exists
Native code does not help performance much
Rob Landley wrote:
> The same arguments were made 30 years ago about writing the OS in a high
> level language like C rather than in raw assembly. And back in the days of
> the sub-1-mhz CPU, that really meant something.
And then those days we are still writing lot's of ASM in kernels...
> I
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 12:53, Larry McVoy wrote:
> We couldn't believe that Java was really that bad so our GUI guy, Aaron
> Kushner, sat down and rewrote the revision history browser in Java.
> On a 500 node graph, the Java tool was up to 85MB. The tk tool doing
> the same thing was 5MB.
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 1) HW is cheaper than software engineers time
Compared to E1000s??? You must be talking about some *really* expensive
engineers!
> 2) to find Java developers is easier than to find C developers
Depends on where you are in the world. It's certainly not true here
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:12:29AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > > Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
> > > not mean, that they don't care about "performance,
this is getting way OT...everyone wants make Linux work well for all programming
methods as long as poor compromises are not made...most of the people that matter
on this list can define "poor" so I am not worried about the future of Linux.
Last 0.02 below and this should be take off the
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 07:25, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
> > not mean, that they don't care about "performance, system-design or
> > any elegance
Ben Greear wrote:
> System-design and elegance are easy to get
> in Java, and in fact are independent of language. Good c code will beat
> Java in most cases, performance wise, but lately the difference has become
> small enough not to matter for most applications.
Rather a sweeping
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
> > not mean, that they don't care about "performance, system-design or
> > any elegance whatsoever" [2].
>
> However, the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
> not mean, that they don't care about "performance, system-design or
> any elegance whatsoever" [2].
However, the very concept of Java encourages not
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
not mean, that they don't care about performance, system-design or
any elegance whatsoever [2].
However, the very concept of Java encourages not
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
not mean, that they don't care about performance, system-design or
any elegance whatsoever [2].
However, the very
Ben Greear wrote:
snip
System-design and elegance are easy to get
in Java, and in fact are independent of language. Good c code will beat
Java in most cases, performance wise, but lately the difference has become
small enough not to matter for most applications.
Rather a sweeping
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 07:25, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
not mean, that they don't care about performance, system-design or
any elegance whatsoever
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:12:29AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:00:47AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Just the fact that some people use Java (or any other language) does
not mean, that they don't care about performance, system-design
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 12:53, Larry McVoy wrote:
We couldn't believe that Java was really that bad so our GUI guy, Aaron
Kushner, sat down and rewrote the revision history browser in Java.
On a 500 node graph, the Java tool was up to 85MB. The tk tool doing
the same thing was 5MB. Note
Rob Landley wrote:
The same arguments were made 30 years ago about writing the OS in a high
level language like C rather than in raw assembly. And back in the days of
the sub-1-mhz CPU, that really meant something.
And then those days we are still writing lot's of ASM in kernels...
I
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
However, the very concept of Java encourages not caring about
performance, system-design or any elegance whatsoever. If you cared
about any of those things you would compile to native code (it exists
Native code does not help performance much and it
Martin Dalecki wrote:
Rob Landley wrote:
Or if you like the idea of a JIT, think about transmeta writing a code
morphing layer that takes java bytecodes. Ditch the VM and have the
processor do it in-cache.
Blah blah blah. The performance of the Transmeta CPU SUCKS ROCKS. No
matter
Mike Harrold wrote:
So what? Crusoe isn't designed for use in supercomputers. It's designed
for use in laptops where the user is running an email reader, a web
browser, a word processor, and where the user couldn't give a cr*p about
performance as long as it isn't noticeable (20% *isn't* for
This [code morphing and binary tranlation]
was set off to provide compensation for the biggest hurdle
of VLIW design - insane code size and partially huge memmory
bus bandwidth designs due to this. (Why do you think the itanim
sucks on integer performance?)
First, Merced does not suck on
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:12:29AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
When was the last time you wrote a large cross-platform GUI that just
worked on other platforms, without any additional tweaking, after you
developed it on your Linux machine?
I'd say that would be the last time I wrote something in
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:27, Mike Harrold wrote:
Martin Dalecki wrote:
Blah blah blah. The performance of the Transmeta CPU SUCKS ROCKS. No
matter
what they try to make you beleve. A venerable classical desing like
the Geode outperforms them in any terms. There is simple significant
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 15:53, Martin Dalecki wrote:
Mike Harrold wrote:
Well the transmeta cpu isn't cheap actually.
Any processor's cheap once it's got enough volume. That's an effect not a
cause.
And if you talk about
super computing, hmm what about some PowerPC CPU variant - they
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:07, J . A . Magallon wrote:
On 20010620 Rob Landley wrote:
What do you worry about caches if every bytecode turns into a jump and more
code ?
'cause the jump may be overlappable with extra execution cores in RISC and
VLIW?
I must admit, I've never actually seen
Then again JavaOS was an abortion on top of Slowaris. [...]
This is a false statemenet, Rob. It was an abortion, all right,
but not related to Solaris in any way at all.
JavaOS existed in two flavours minimum, which had very little
in common. The historically first of them (Luna), was a
Russell Leighton wrote:
The lack of a good operating system _dependent_ interface
makes running fast hard in Java when you need to do IO...
yes, there is always JNI so you can add a little C to mmap a file or whatever,
JDK 1.4 beta comes with a way to memory-map files, and various
other I/O
this is getting way OT...everyone wants make Linux work well for all programming
methods as long as poor compromises are not made...most of the people that matter
on this list can define poor so I am not worried about the future of Linux.
Last 0.02 below and this should be take off the
Davide Libenzi wrote:
1) HW is cheaper than software engineers time
Compared to E1000s??? You must be talking about some *really* expensive
engineers!
2) to find Java developers is easier than to find C developers
Depends on where you are in the world. It's certainly not true here
This is exactly the reason why Transmetians love to
showcase DVD playing and other performance related
stuff - it is where they beat Geode. Geode's performance
is quite adequate for kiosk/POS app and it's a formiddable
Geode is jut about capable of MPEG1. The VIA processors are extremely
48 matches
Mail list logo
