On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:39:34PM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:51:20 -0400, Jay Oliveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1) Fred takes too much CPU and RAM because it's written in Java.
> I hate this depate.
> It's true that object orienting uses up (a few) more bytes than non-OO  
> programming, but that's trivial compared to the structuring you (can) get  
> with OO vs non-OO.

Absolutely, virtual pointers are well worth the cost.
> JIT Java (which we're all running) is also very speedy, there's only a few  
> rare instances where it's worth the trouble to replace code with something  
> natively instead.

Debatable. But most of the problems with Java come from the fact that it
is non-free IMHO. If and when freenet works on GCJ, we benefit from:
1. Reduced CPU usage due to better optimization and no compilation at
run time.
2. Reduced memory usage for the same reason.
3. Increased performance for BigInteger operations such as crypto; 5-10x
faster using the free GMP library than Sun's proprietary implementation.
> On the other hand, it's quite easy to lose control with object creation,  
> and to forget how to help the GC do the work most efficiently. That has  
> nothing to do with Java in itself though.

Well, Java does tend to produce a lot of object churn. But even if I was
doing a project the size of Freenet in C++ I would find a GC very
useful. Explicit deallocation support would *occasionally* be useful.
> /me - professional Software Engineer, well trained in C, C++ and Java  
> (although mostly J2ME)
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

Reply via email to