Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 01:20:06 02/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2001 at 19:51:20, James Swafford wrote: >On February 10, 2001 at 15:16:45, Angrim wrote: > >>On February 10, 2001 at 14:50:13, James Swafford wrote: >> >>>> >>In general, Java does a lot of extra work to protect you from making >>simple dumb mistakes that would crash a C program. Very nice for a > >You're arguing my point for me. The previous poster commented that >there was no reason a java program shouldn't be as fast as a C >program. As stated, my understanding of java is that it does a >lot of behind-the-scenes work that makes it slower. Thanks for >the confirmation. :-) I really don't care about the java details. > But the point is that there is nothing semantically different in doing garbage collection and static construction/destruction. A good compiler would be able to recognize that in a chess program, most datastructures live for the duration of the program, and therefore, there would be no need for the garbage collector. At least it should be an option in a good compiler to do static construction/destruction if the program doesn't contain anything that is impossible without garbage collection. Again, I don't know if such a compiler exists. I'm just saying that C and Java are equivalent languages semantically, and that every Java source code you can ever show me, corresponds very well to some effective machine code on normal von Neumann architectures, such as the ones that C model.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.