3 ms·

Not if you compare on same hardware but the amount of memory itself that you can end up saving you can re-invest it into compute. I've seen massive perf/$ gains

Not if you compare on same hardware but the amount of memory itself that you can end up saving you can re-invest it into compute. I've seen massive perf/$ gains for log-parsing and memory-mapped data profiling use cases.

hactually 6y ago
Not even that is required - the popular synthetic benchmarks have Golang (1.14) beating out Java which is echoed by a lot of users and their usecases. A lot of Java claims seem to come from future/unreleased efforts which muddy a lot of comparisons. [0] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/go.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- apta 6y ago
  Where is it beating Java by any significant amount? The regex benchmark uses Java's native regex matcher, whereas the golang implementation uses a PCRE regex matcher, so not an apples to apples comparison. The mandelbrot benchmark are minutely different on my machine (2.06s vs 2.13s). Note that the test machines that websites use are quite old (certain optimizations or available APIs the JVM has are not supported by those older processors). Now if you look at the bottom of the list, you'll see where Java far outperforms golang, especially in the binary-trees benchmark (12.67s vs 9.14s and 25.19s vs 8.28s in favor of Java both times).
  - hactually 6y ago
    Your original assertion: > golang's performance won't be as good as Java's My refutation followed with updated synthetic benchmark results. Your serve I believe. If you have data to prove that, for the workloads in the article, Java would outperform Go I would be very interested in seeing it.
    - apta 6y ago
      Synthetic benchmarks are not representative of real world performance. People who have dealt with large programs can testify to this. Yet, the binary-trees benchmark is allocation heavy, and typical of workloads similar to those described in the article, and it shows how far ahead Java is able to pull compared to golang. It's a fact that the JVM's JIT and GCs are way more advanced than what golang has to offer.

hactually 6y ago

Not even that is required - the popular synthetic benchmarks have Golang (1.14) beating out Java which is echoed by a lot of users and their usecases. A lot of Java claims seem to come from future/unreleased efforts which muddy a lot of comparisons. [0] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/go.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

apta 6y ago
Where is it beating Java by any significant amount? The regex benchmark uses Java's native regex matcher, whereas the golang implementation uses a PCRE regex matcher, so not an apples to apples comparison. The mandelbrot benchmark are minutely different on my machine (2.06s vs 2.13s). Note that the test machines that websites use are quite old (certain optimizations or available APIs the JVM has are not supported by those older processors). Now if you look at the bottom of the list, you'll see where Java far outperforms golang, especially in the binary-trees benchmark (12.67s vs 9.14s and 25.19s vs 8.28s in favor of Java both times).
- hactually 6y ago
  Your original assertion: > golang's performance won't be as good as Java's My refutation followed with updated synthetic benchmark results. Your serve I believe. If you have data to prove that, for the workloads in the article, Java would outperform Go I would be very interested in seeing it.
  - apta 6y ago
    Synthetic benchmarks are not representative of real world performance. People who have dealt with large programs can testify to this. Yet, the binary-trees benchmark is allocation heavy, and typical of workloads similar to those described in the article, and it shows how far ahead Java is able to pull compared to golang. It's a fact that the JVM's JIT and GCs are way more advanced than what golang has to offer.