Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:52:08 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 05:56:00, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On November 15, 2002 at 05:22:44, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 15, 2002 at 04:31:11, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>[snip] >>>Btw: The speed of Java is not as bad as many believe. >> >>A penalty of about 2x-4x has been pretty well constant for compiled Java. Java >>compilers improve, but so do C and C++ compilers. It's 50-100 ELO. > >That surely depends on the information source. For example >http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-1998/jw-02-jperf-p4.html shows that >it's not as bad. > >Now I agree that the site I mention is probably a bit biased. (although they >clearly explain what they test) I had some other good sites, which compared C++ >and Java (and it was not a java-only site) which came to the conclusion that the >newest version (1.4.x) is about 20% slower than comparable C++ code (compiled >with M$VC++, version unknown) Those tests are always done by incompetents. Whenever I see a result like that, I can easily increase the stated C++ performance with a few simple tweaks. [snip]
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.