4 ms·

> a language x written in language y cannot by definition be faster than language y A C compiler can be written in Java. Therefore, by "definition", Java is fa

> a language x written in language y cannot by definition be faster than language y A C compiler can be written in Java. Therefore, by "definition", Java is faster than C.

silisili 5y ago
Not correct... because Java could not run that C code. Whereas Java written in C could run Java code.
- hashmash 5y ago
  That's not the statement you made. A safer statement would be, "a simple interpreter for language x, implemented in language y, cannot be faster than language y".
  - silisili 5y ago
    My statement is that language speed comparisons are stupid, but if you're willing to make one, you cannot beat the language you're written in. That's like saying Shakespeare writes better stories than...English.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BenoitP 5y ago
  Java can run C/C++: https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/sulong https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/sulong What's your point?
  - silisili 5y ago
    Ok. So you're positing that a giant heavy runtime, written in C++, via a library, can then run C++ code faster than...C++? Good luck.
    - BenoitP 5y ago
      It actually really runs slower as is it first an interpreter, and the compiler is yet to be optimized to GCC levels; but is has a great compiler infrastructure that could eventually JIT to faster code (it being a runtime compilation, that has statistics, and Graal being capable of partial evaluation) I was merely pointing at a hole in your argument: the language of the compiler has absolutely no influence in the quality of it's output (again: the JVM compiles to assembly, not to C++). A compiler written in brainfuck could write code that is more performant than gcc does. The language does have an influence on compilation speed, though. But that matter in your argument?
    - kaba0 5y ago
      Actually that can indeed be possible — have a look at Futamura projections. Also, there are AOT compilers that can make use of profile information.

> a language x written in language y cannot by definition be faster than language y A C compiler can be written in Java. Therefore, by "definition", Java is faster than C.

silisili 5y ago

Not correct... because Java could not run that C code. Whereas Java written in C could run Java code.

hashmash 5y ago
That's not the statement you made. A safer statement would be, "a simple interpreter for language x, implemented in language y, cannot be faster than language y".
- silisili 5y ago
  My statement is that language speed comparisons are stupid, but if you're willing to make one, you cannot beat the language you're written in. That's like saying Shakespeare writes better stories than...English.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BenoitP 5y ago
Java can run C/C++: https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/sulong https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/sulong What's your point?
- silisili 5y ago
  Ok. So you're positing that a giant heavy runtime, written in C++, via a library, can then run C++ code faster than...C++? Good luck.
  - BenoitP 5y ago
    It actually really runs slower as is it first an interpreter, and the compiler is yet to be optimized to GCC levels; but is has a great compiler infrastructure that could eventually JIT to faster code (it being a runtime compilation, that has statistics, and Graal being capable of partial evaluation) I was merely pointing at a hole in your argument: the language of the compiler has absolutely no influence in the quality of it's output (again: the JVM compiles to assembly, not to C++). A compiler written in brainfuck could write code that is more performant than gcc does. The language does have an influence on compilation speed, though. But that matter in your argument?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Actually that can indeed be possible — have a look at Futamura projections. Also, there are AOT compilers that can make use of profile information.