3 ms·

On a Pentium 3? Don't you think such a comparison might be out of date? Java has changed a lot since those days. Yes, Pascal/Delphi also compiles very fast, it

• nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Let's say we port it from P3 to multi-core, 2GHz x86. We want to know if prior performance was relevant as a predictor. As in, will difference choices made on old platform apply to new? Here's a few examples to illustrate: 1. Interpreted vs compiled language. 2. Simple, Oberon-like type checks vs Rust or Ada. 3. Several pages of BNF in grammar vs 1 or 2. 4. Designed for abstract, heap machine or just above real, stack machine? 5. Number of steps needed between source and efficient exdcution. 6. Number of times you perform those steps (eg AOT vs JIT). 7. Cache-awareness of design. These are a few key differences between Java and Wirth-style languages then. They made compiles rapid on P3. Updating to multicore or 64-bit would be trivial given each update at ETH was a few undergrads work for 6mo-2yr. So, do lessons learned that those attributes Wirth-style greatly aid performance of compilers and runtime still apply today? I think so given what Go accomplished in its time and resources. Other languages too with design decisions that proved out over time. It took truly epic work and investment to get Java to its current situation. I havent heard people say Pascal caused them lots of pain aside from functional crowd or some wanting a few C++ features. What specifics bothered you? And why did you need circular dependencies?