3 ms·
Drawback: the environment must load the Scala runtime. Sometimes is better to add some semicolons instead of slowing down the whole device. Scala is great, bu
by fosk 15y ago
Drawback: the environment must load the Scala runtime.
Sometimes is better to add some semicolons instead of slowing down the whole device.
Scala is great, but in this case the choice must be made carefully.
- Dove 15y agoYeah, I'm curious about that. When article said, "He lists benefits of Scala development for Android as speed, easier programming, . . . ." (emphasis mine), that turned my head a bit. I would think the best Scala could hope for would be to match Java's performance. I can't imagine how it would be faster. Are there actual numbers for Android development? What do you lose doing Scala and where?
- fosk 15y agoFound this, but not sure if it can be considered reliable: http://scala-programming-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/Scala-on-Android-Performance-td2004054.html http://scala-programming-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/Scal... The following one instead is an official Google doc with some benchmarks between Java/Scala/C++/Go (not specifically related to Android), where it's stated that actually Java would be more performant than Scala without the GC: https://days2011.scala-lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-Hundt.pdf https://days2011.scala-lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-H... "In other words, Scala spends 7699-2416-1 = 5282 clicks on non-GC code. Java spends 14073-10484-110-2 = 3477 clicks on non-GC code. Since GC has other negative performance side-effects, one could estimate that without the GC anomaly, Java would be about roughly 30% faster than Scala." Very interesting. Also, Scala JARs are 3.6x bigger than the Java equivalent (due to the runtime files, see page 7).