4 ms·

> the JVM often competes in language performance closer to C++ I don't think it's even close. Benchmark game is one (biased) reference. And it's even worse bec

> the JVM often competes in language performance closer to C++ I don't think it's even close. Benchmark game is one (biased) reference. And it's even worse because optimized Java is not canonical Java. Canonical C++ is pretty fast.

lelanthran 3y ago
> I don't think it's even close. Benchmark game is one (biased) reference. I agree. 1. Benchmarks tend to do one thing, then repeat that one thing 25000 times. Non-server programs don't do that[1] so you don't get to amortise the time spent on JITting a code snippet across 25000 executions. 2. The runtime basically requires exclusive use of a core for short periods (GC, JIT). If you're running on a system that costs per core, you're using (worst case scenario) an extra core for each Java program. The benchmarks happily give multiple cores even to sequential (non-parallel) benchmarks. [1] Even many server programs don't do that.
- igouy 3y ago
  1. The benchmarks game doesn't "repeat that one thing 25000 times" as warmup and the benchmarks game measurements include startup time: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/sometimes-people-just-make-up-stuff.html#jvm-startup-time https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... 2. The benchmarks game happily gives multiple cores and shows that "cpu secs" measurement: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
igouy 3y ago
1) Their comment was "Based on hearsay" and made no reference to the benchmarks game. 2) "one (biased) reference" is simply name calling. 3) What specifically are you saying is "biased" about these measurements? https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

lelanthran 3y ago

> I don't think it's even close. Benchmark game is one (biased) reference. I agree. 1. Benchmarks tend to do one thing, then repeat that one thing 25000 times. Non-server programs don't do that[1] so you don't get to amortise the time spent on JITting a code snippet across 25000 executions. 2. The runtime basically requires exclusive use of a core for short periods (GC, JIT). If you're running on a system that costs per core, you're using (worst case scenario) an extra core for each Java program. The benchmarks happily give multiple cores even to sequential (non-parallel) benchmarks. [1] Even many server programs don't do that.

igouy 3y ago
1. The benchmarks game doesn't "repeat that one thing 25000 times" as warmup and the benchmarks game measurements include startup time: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/sometimes-people-just-make-up-stuff.html#jvm-startup-time https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... 2. The benchmarks game happily gives multiple cores and shows that "cpu secs" measurement: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

igouy 3y ago

1) Their comment was "Based on hearsay" and made no reference to the benchmarks game. 2) "one (biased) reference" is simply name calling. 3) What specifically are you saying is "biased" about these measurements? https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]