4 ms·
Or we could not use the JVM, because it's antiquated and never worked. I mean... that seems to be where everyone went five years ago.
by openfly 16y ago
Or we could not use the JVM, because it's antiquated and never worked. I mean... that seems to be where everyone went five years ago.
- keytweetlouie 16y agoIt doesn't work at all you are right. That is why twitter is moving away from ruby and towards scala for reliability...sarcasm
- abstractbill 16y agoIn what way does the JVM "not work"?
- stcredzero 16y agoI remember the days when the JVM only had mark and sweep GC and it interpreted bytecodes. I remember when the JIT kept on crashing, and Java apps were catching up to Smalltalk VMs on benchmarks, but wheezing on real apps because of poor GC. Then there was generational GC, but lots of real apps were still wheezing because no one knew how to tune the GC settings. It took a decade for the JVM to cover the same ground the Smalltalk VMs had covered 4 or 5 before it. Now the JVM is mature, and it fricken kicks ass! Really, for a high-level OO language supporting VM, the thing just screams. It's still unwieldy and much better suited to server stuff, but as a Smalltalker and therefore a former longtime Java detractor, I have to say, I am really impressed.
- rbanffy 16y agoSo, putting it shortly, it does work. I agree completely Smalltalk 80 kicks Java 2010's ass, but, still, saying Java does not work is kind of exaggerated.
- openfly 16y agoResource Management, and stability.