3 ms·
I think that's almost certainly false. JIT'd java is almost certainly faster than bytecode interpreted java. edit: or do you mean that the overhead of applying
by foota 10y ago
I think that's almost certainly false. JIT'd java is almost certainly faster than bytecode interpreted java.
edit: or do you mean that the overhead of applying optimizations and profiling outweigh the performance gains relative to compiling from something like c directly to machine code?
- flukus 10y agoI mean the collection and application of the optimizations take up more CPU than the optimizations remove. This isn't JIT but real time optimizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optimization) while the system is running.
- zigzigzag 10y agoIt depends a lot on things like how long the program runs for, and whether you consider spare cores on the machine to be "taking up CPU" or not. Profile-guided optimisations win you about 20% in most industrial Java, apparently. So if you have a server that starts, warms up in say 30 seconds, and then runs for a week, you can see that it is easily profitable. For a command line app that lives for 500 msec, not so much.