3 ms·

I doubt that's true. The actual Java software you encounter includes much of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Netflix. I mean, everything is relative, but it's faster

by pron 7y ago

I doubt that's true. The actual Java software you encounter includes much of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Netflix. I mean, everything is relative, but it's faster than Go and less bloated (what does that even mean?) than Python or JS.

scarface74 7y ago
I’m not saying Java is slow or fast, but just because it is used by large companies doesn’t say anything. They have the resources to throw hardware at it.
- pron 7y ago
  They also need to serve a lot of people. Java also uses less energy than Go, significantly less than JS, and a whole lot less than Python [1]. Those big companies also need to care about that (not to mention about Java's combination of performance, productivity, serviceability and stability). [1]: https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Apple uses (used?) WebObjects for the iTunes/App Store. I doubt they are using the latest most finely tuned version Java for it.
shantly 7y ago
I just mean all the developer tools, consumer-facing GUI software, and a wide variety of server software & daemons. All of those that I’ve seen in Java over the last 20ish years. Perhaps the tech giants are all writing Java that’s nearly as low-footprint and fast as C, I dunno, no way to tell from this side. I can only sample programs I’ve had access to. [edit] bloated = much higher memory requirements than I’d expect for what they’re doing (yes I know how to configure jvm memory and such), affects the performance of other software on the same machine more than I’d expect, if running on battery, fairly likely to chew through it while doing nothing.
- pron 7y ago
  > I can only sample programs I’ve had access to. You have access to Java programs all the time; much of the software you depend on is Java. You're talking about software you run locally on your desktop -- that's something quite different. Desktop applications are a relatively exceptional use of Java these days, although they're still doing better in both performance and footprint than the fashionable JS apps. > affects the performance of other software on the same machine more than I’d expect, if running on battery, fairly likely to chew through it while doing nothing. Let me repeat what I said in another comment. Java uses less energy than Go, significantly less than JS, and a whole lot less than Python: https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle... Python may require less memory, but you'll overall need more hardware to do the same work as Java.
  - shantly 7y ago
    > You're talking about software you run locally on your desktop -- that's something quite different. > > and a wide variety of server software & daemons Mind, I don't hate Java or anything, I'm just saying, I've been hearing folks tell me it's definitely fast & nimble while watching it not actually be fast or nimble for north of two decades. I don't know where theory and practice diverge, but with significant frequency when it comes to Java, they very noticeably do, and always have. And no, not just on desktop applications, but sure, exceptionally so there. And god, I'd hope it'd do better than any scripting language whatsoever by practically any performance measure. If not, what's the point? Those are basically never reasonably fast at real work unless they're just tying together C libraries that're doing the heavy lifting. As for the reference, yes, there are always benchmarks, always papers, always articles, always folks who'll patiently explain why Java must, certainly, be incredibly speedy. Seriously, 20+ years of reading that. Meanwhile when I use Java software it's usually not half as impressive on the performance and respectfulness to hardware fronts as those imply it must be. Again, I am not sure why this is, but it's been so consistently true for so long across so many types of Java program I've used that I don't think I've just managed to somehow use every single one of the worst-written Java programs in existence, or something.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
re: bloated Well, at least there's a comparison. It's incredibly annoying when zealots characterize their preferred <whatever> with "high performance", "lightweight", or, worst of all, "powerful". In addition to the inherent lack of specificity, all of those are relative terms to <something else> but that is always omitted.

by pron 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

I’m not saying Java is slow or fast, but just because it is used by large companies doesn’t say anything. They have the resources to throw hardware at it.

pron 7y ago
They also need to serve a lot of people. Java also uses less energy than Go, significantly less than JS, and a whole lot less than Python [1]. Those big companies also need to care about that (not to mention about Java's combination of performance, productivity, serviceability and stability). [1]: https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
- scarface74 7y ago
  Apple uses (used?) WebObjects for the iTunes/App Store. I doubt they are using the latest most finely tuned version Java for it.

shantly 7y ago

I just mean all the developer tools, consumer-facing GUI software, and a wide variety of server software & daemons. All of those that I’ve seen in Java over the last 20ish years. Perhaps the tech giants are all writing Java that’s nearly as low-footprint and fast as C, I dunno, no way to tell from this side. I can only sample programs I’ve had access to. [edit] bloated = much higher memory requirements than I’d expect for what they’re doing (yes I know how to configure jvm memory and such), affects the performance of other software on the same machine more than I’d expect, if running on battery, fairly likely to chew through it while doing nothing.

pron 7y ago
> I can only sample programs I’ve had access to. You have access to Java programs all the time; much of the software you depend on is Java. You're talking about software you run locally on your desktop -- that's something quite different. Desktop applications are a relatively exceptional use of Java these days, although they're still doing better in both performance and footprint than the fashionable JS apps. > affects the performance of other software on the same machine more than I’d expect, if running on battery, fairly likely to chew through it while doing nothing. Let me repeat what I said in another comment. Java uses less energy than Go, significantly less than JS, and a whole lot less than Python: https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle... Python may require less memory, but you'll overall need more hardware to do the same work as Java.
- shantly 7y ago
  > You're talking about software you run locally on your desktop -- that's something quite different. > > and a wide variety of server software & daemons Mind, I don't hate Java or anything, I'm just saying, I've been hearing folks tell me it's definitely fast & nimble while watching it not actually be fast or nimble for north of two decades. I don't know where theory and practice diverge, but with significant frequency when it comes to Java, they very noticeably do, and always have. And no, not just on desktop applications, but sure, exceptionally so there. And god, I'd hope it'd do better than any scripting language whatsoever by practically any performance measure. If not, what's the point? Those are basically never reasonably fast at real work unless they're just tying together C libraries that're doing the heavy lifting. As for the reference, yes, there are always benchmarks, always papers, always articles, always folks who'll patiently explain why Java must, certainly, be incredibly speedy. Seriously, 20+ years of reading that. Meanwhile when I use Java software it's usually not half as impressive on the performance and respectfulness to hardware fronts as those imply it must be. Again, I am not sure why this is, but it's been so consistently true for so long across so many types of Java program I've used that I don't think I've just managed to somehow use every single one of the worst-written Java programs in existence, or something.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

re: bloated Well, at least there's a comparison. It's incredibly annoying when zealots characterize their preferred <whatever> with "high performance", "lightweight", or, worst of all, "powerful". In addition to the inherent lack of specificity, all of those are relative terms to <something else> but that is always omitted.