|
 |
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> crowe <cro### [at] goldinc com> wrote:
> : Original (1.0) java was slow. With 1.1 and above performance is
> : substantially better improved. I have looked at benchmarks for both
> : native "C" and java in doing matrix manipulation (matrix multiplication,
> : rotations and transformations) any haven't seen any substantial
> : difference between the two (about half the time the Java code won out,
> : but always, the two were close). I believe the term that is used is
> : "run time compiled byte code"?
>
> So what's the difference between compiled Java and compiled C++ except
> that C++ is supported by almost any platfrom while Java isn't?
>
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Well, the main difference is not the code you write on your own, but the
code you use written by others. The best part of java is a well
specified class library, including parallism, networking, serialisation
etc...
X-platform is very easy concerning calculations with 4byte floats, it
gets tricky with other floats, endianess, different thread models etc.
Those are the parts boosting java.
Axel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
