Well, C++ is such a flexible language that it's hard to say what general C++ code looks like. I'd say I'd expect Java to either match or even beat C++ for gener

Well, C++ is such a flexible language that it's hard to say what general C++ code looks like. I'd say I'd expect Java to either match or even beat C++ for general "business code" which is pretty vague but is typified by lots of layers of abstraction, lots of data transformation, hash maps, string manipulation etc. Modern compilers like Graal are very good at analyzing and removing abstraction overhead. I'd expect C++ to stomp Java for any sort of numerics work, media codecs, 3D engines, things like that. my only point was that the JVM specifically isn't faster than AOT languages nor is it faster than AOT Java because of JIT specifically Hmm, but is there such a thing as an AOT language? You can interpret or JIT compile C and you can interpret, JIT or AOT compile Java too. I think it's clearly the case that JITC Java is faster than AOT Java. It was maybe unclear for a long time but Graal and SubstrateVM let us compare now. You pay a big performance hit to use a VM-less AOT Java compile. Java is sort of a half-way house between a really dynamic language and a really static language.... it's got dynamic aspects and also static aspects.