3 ms·

> Assembly (which is faster than anything in the same sense: for any program in any language, there exists and Assembly program that's at least as fast) At lea

> Assembly (which is faster than anything in the same sense: for any program in any language, there exists and Assembly program that's at least as fast) At least you aren't claiming that the JVM is ~1.5 faster than perfectly written assembly :) I disagree with a lot of what you’re writing. However, we’ve reached the point where we need to run benchmarks and analyze the generated code (this is easy to do for compiled languages using https://godbolt.org/ https://godbolt.org/, but for the JVM, it can be a bit more complex, given the warm-up factor). So, there is one fundamental point I started with: > JIT is effective for languages where the source code lacks sufficient information (dynamic typing, where anything can be null) And your answer is: > A JIT can make such languages decently fast, but that's not how it's used in Java. In Java it is used for speculative optimisation, which allows far more aggressive optimisation than an AOT compiler can do. Essentially, you are saying that the compiler can apply aggressive optimizations when it knows what is happening in the code. But I say that JIT is needed so the compiler can figure out what is happening in the code and perform aggressive optimizations. There are many things that can be inferred from the code without needing to execute it. The question is how difficult it is to make such an inference: in one scenario, the compiler might attempt to track whether specific data changes-and, if it can prove this, mark the data as immutable and apply certain optimizations-whereas in another, it might already possess the information that the data is immutable. Moreover, information about immutability is useful not only to the compiler but also to the programmer. Just like information about types: it benefits both the compiler and the programmer. Imagine a fan of JS or Python joining our conversation and claiming that both Java and Rust are low-level languages because you have to specify types - something they view as complex and a hindrance to development speed. The same applies to the GC: the compiler can perform more optimizations when it knows when memory needs to be cleared (move it to stack or even place the data on registers). The JVM attempts to do this (via escape analysis), but there are limitations; consequently, data ends up on the heap, and GC operations come at a cost (due to data movement). Rust simply makes it easy to obtain far more information, enabling aggressive optimizations that are both immediate and guaranteed. There remain a small number of cases, such as `switch` statements - where one branch executes 99% of the time, while the other 99 branches execute only 1% of the time. In such instances, the JIT could indeed perform further optimizations; however, I am not even sure if the overhead of monitoring wouldn't outweigh the benefits. And the question is when and how to perform PGO, or whether to perform it at all.

pron 19d ago
> There are many things that can be inferred from the code without needing to execute it. The question is how difficult it is to make such an inference: in one scenario, the compiler might attempt to track whether specific data changes-and, if it can prove this, mark the data as immutable and apply certain optimizations-whereas in another, it might already possess the information that the data is immutable. Yes, and the important point is that when it comes to knowing things statically, abstraction and optimisation are in conflict. The whole point of abstraction is that the implementation details aren't known. So in C++ we always suffer from this problem called "zero overhead abstractions" or "abstraction costs", which means that to give the compiler the information it needs, we have to use less general abstractions, which are viral and harm evolution. What a JIT does is allow the compiler to learn the very things that abstraction hides; yes, it's a virtual call, yes, it could target anything, but I've seen it hit the same target 1000 out of the last 1000 times, so I speculate that this will continue and I'll inline even though I could be wrong. > The same applies to the GC: the compiler can perform more optimizations when it knows when memory needs to be cleared I understand why this could be true in theory, but in practice the problem is: 1. not that the compiler knows when an object is unreachable, but that the generated code has to do something at that point, and 2. the most efficient known memory management algorithms - moving collectors and arenas, both work in nearly the same way - are entirely predicated on freeing memory in bulk and on not doing anything when an object becomes unreachable, and so the knowledge of when an object becomes unreachable doesn't help them. So it is true that C and C++ and Rust always statically know when an object is dead, and you could say that hypothetically they don't need to do anything with that information, but in practice they all act on that information immediately and that's inefficient. > There remain a small number of cases, such as `switch` statements - where one branch executes 99% of the time, while the other 99 branches execute only 1% of the time. So the main practical benefit of a JIT isn't that at all, but that it can do the "mother of all optimisations" - inlining - far more aggressively. Inlining is important because it cracks open the abstraction boundary of the inlined subroutine, and allows the compiler to further specialise and optimise things, now with the appropriate context. Anyway, all of these fundamental questions and differences between languages with more statically known information and figuring out "unprovable" information in practice were very well known before the JVM was built to address the performance problems we had suffered from in large C++ programs. So we can argue over which workloads are helped by this and which aren't, but there is no way to say which is usually faster in the absract (because, again, these considerations were known and taken into account). It's merely an empirical question, and not one that's easy to settle. After more than 25 years of working with C++ and almost 20 years of working with Java, my default is that low-level wins on performance (if written by experts) in smaller programs, and Java wins on performance in larger programs, but of course, there are many caveats in either direction.

pron 19d ago

> There are many things that can be inferred from the code without needing to execute it. The question is how difficult it is to make such an inference: in one scenario, the compiler might attempt to track whether specific data changes-and, if it can prove this, mark the data as immutable and apply certain optimizations-whereas in another, it might already possess the information that the data is immutable. Yes, and the important point is that when it comes to knowing things statically, abstraction and optimisation are in conflict. The whole point of abstraction is that the implementation details aren't known. So in C++ we always suffer from this problem called "zero overhead abstractions" or "abstraction costs", which means that to give the compiler the information it needs, we have to use less general abstractions, which are viral and harm evolution. What a JIT does is allow the compiler to learn the very things that abstraction hides; yes, it's a virtual call, yes, it could target anything, but I've seen it hit the same target 1000 out of the last 1000 times, so I speculate that this will continue and I'll inline even though I could be wrong. > The same applies to the GC: the compiler can perform more optimizations when it knows when memory needs to be cleared I understand why this could be true in theory, but in practice the problem is: 1. not that the compiler knows when an object is unreachable, but that the generated code has to do something at that point, and 2. the most efficient known memory management algorithms - moving collectors and arenas, both work in nearly the same way - are entirely predicated on freeing memory in bulk and on not doing anything when an object becomes unreachable, and so the knowledge of when an object becomes unreachable doesn't help them. So it is true that C and C++ and Rust always statically know when an object is dead, and you could say that hypothetically they don't need to do anything with that information, but in practice they all act on that information immediately and that's inefficient. > There remain a small number of cases, such as `switch` statements - where one branch executes 99% of the time, while the other 99 branches execute only 1% of the time. So the main practical benefit of a JIT isn't that at all, but that it can do the "mother of all optimisations" - inlining - far more aggressively. Inlining is important because it cracks open the abstraction boundary of the inlined subroutine, and allows the compiler to further specialise and optimise things, now with the appropriate context. Anyway, all of these fundamental questions and differences between languages with more statically known information and figuring out "unprovable" information in practice were very well known before the JVM was built to address the performance problems we had suffered from in large C++ programs. So we can argue over which workloads are helped by this and which aren't, but there is no way to say which is usually faster in the absract (because, again, these considerations were known and taken into account). It's merely an empirical question, and not one that's easy to settle. After more than 25 years of working with C++ and almost 20 years of working with Java, my default is that low-level wins on performance (if written by experts) in smaller programs, and Java wins on performance in larger programs, but of course, there are many caveats in either direction.