Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:38:48 02/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2001 at 04:20:06, David Rasmussen wrote: >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 is a classic case of theory verses practice. In theory, Java can be as fast as C. In practice, it isn't. Generally speaking, you get about 1/4 performace of the best C compilers. Sometimes a little better than that, but never in the same ballpark.
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.