5 ms·

That is garbage collection performance, something that only GC languages even have to consider as additional overhead. It also doesn't even try to compare again

That is garbage collection performance, something that only GC languages even have to consider as additional overhead. It also doesn't even try to compare against anything non-Java. There are no serious Java performance comparisons on stuff like transaction throughput, which would be what the "long running server application" usecase should aim for. You yourself claimed that enterprise data processing is what you are talking about. There are benchmarks that even with long warmup times make Java come up far worse than all the compiled languages (even Golang nowadays). https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/javavm-go.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Imho, people have stopped benchmarking Java ages ago, since it is known to be hopeless.

igouy 1y ago
I think you need to say what you mean by "far worse".
- holowoodman 1y ago
  If you look at the extremes, it is up to a factor of 3: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/box-plot-summary-charts.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... If you exclude stuff like SSE intrinics, it's usually 50% slower.
  - igouy 1y ago
    To be clear, you're saying for the benchmark tasks with the worst performing Java programs; the Java programs perform worse than the Go programs for the benchmark tasks with the worst performing Go programs? What about the median performance benchmark tasks?
    - holowoodman 1y ago
      I'm saying that Golang is one of the worst-performing compiled languages, and even Golang is faster than Java for the respectively fastest program on the page I've referenced. Other compiled languages are even better than Golang.
      - igouy 1y ago
        The Java programs median shows slightly faster than the Go programs median, in the first chart on that page. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/download/fastest-elapsed.svg https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
ColonelPhantom 1y ago
Calling GC time "additional overhead" is not entirely correct, imo. Non-GC languages often spend plenty of time dealing with malloc/free, and I consider both GC and malloc/free to be "memory management". Both are non-trivial! GC usually also comes in "copying" variants, which can have advantages like reducing memory fragmentation.
- holowoodman 1y ago
  Granted, malloc/free isn't totally free. But malloc/free languages always seem to be faster than Java in benchmarks, at least the ones I've read and referenced already in the comments around this article. GC also, even if it were faster, comes at the expense of eating RAM like mad, at least if judged by the RAM Java likes to eat. Usually, Java software just consumes 50% of your RAM until the first GC pause. And even before that GC pause, it's dog slow. Memory fragmentation can more easily be reduced by pooled allocators. For long-running server processes, it can also be possible to just kill the worker processes/threads from time to time. And I've never seen memory fragmentation in manually allocated languages lead to more memory consumption or worse performance than in Java.
gf000 1y ago
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r23&test=query https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r23&tes... Here is your transaction throughput. But I'm sure AWS's whole platform team, Alibaba, third of Google, etc don't know what they are doing.
- holowoodman 1y ago
  No big difference for stuff that waits for I/O, at least if it doesn't do it in an inefficient way. No Java in sight in the top lot for "Cached queries" which is the one where language makes a difference.

igouy 1y ago

I think you need to say what you mean by "far worse".

holowoodman 1y ago
If you look at the extremes, it is up to a factor of 3: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/box-plot-summary-charts.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... If you exclude stuff like SSE intrinics, it's usually 50% slower.
- igouy 1y ago
  To be clear, you're saying for the benchmark tasks with the worst performing Java programs; the Java programs perform worse than the Go programs for the benchmark tasks with the worst performing Go programs? What about the median performance benchmark tasks?
  - holowoodman 1y ago
    I'm saying that Golang is one of the worst-performing compiled languages, and even Golang is faster than Java for the respectively fastest program on the page I've referenced. Other compiled languages are even better than Golang.
    - igouy 1y ago
      The Java programs median shows slightly faster than the Go programs median, in the first chart on that page. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/download/fastest-elapsed.svg https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

ColonelPhantom 1y ago

Calling GC time "additional overhead" is not entirely correct, imo. Non-GC languages often spend plenty of time dealing with malloc/free, and I consider both GC and malloc/free to be "memory management". Both are non-trivial! GC usually also comes in "copying" variants, which can have advantages like reducing memory fragmentation.

holowoodman 1y ago
Granted, malloc/free isn't totally free. But malloc/free languages always seem to be faster than Java in benchmarks, at least the ones I've read and referenced already in the comments around this article. GC also, even if it were faster, comes at the expense of eating RAM like mad, at least if judged by the RAM Java likes to eat. Usually, Java software just consumes 50% of your RAM until the first GC pause. And even before that GC pause, it's dog slow. Memory fragmentation can more easily be reduced by pooled allocators. For long-running server processes, it can also be possible to just kill the worker processes/threads from time to time. And I've never seen memory fragmentation in manually allocated languages lead to more memory consumption or worse performance than in Java.

gf000 1y ago

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r23&test=query https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r23&tes... Here is your transaction throughput. But I'm sure AWS's whole platform team, Alibaba, third of Google, etc don't know what they are doing.

holowoodman 1y ago
No big difference for stuff that waits for I/O, at least if it doesn't do it in an inefficient way. No Java in sight in the top lot for "Cached queries" which is the one where language makes a difference.