4 ms·
"I would expect the numbers should be better than Scala, for example" Maybe once 1.1 is out and the language game switches to it, that will be the case (the be
by voidlogic 14y ago
"I would expect the numbers should be better than Scala, for example"
Maybe once 1.1 is out and the language game switches to it, that will be the case (the benchmark is using the current stable release of Go 1.0.3).
Also, I assume you are talking about execution time, Go destroys Scala in your linked comparison in terms of memory usage.
- igouy 14y agoPlease don't generalize from the memory use of those programs http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/189552 http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/189552
- voidlogic 14y agoInteresting. It is pretty amazing and unfortunate after all these years (18?) Sun/Oracle hasn't made the default JVM memory allocation more adaptive/intelligent. Could the JVM -Xms option be used to try to mitigate this defect? One note, Scala uses more memory than Java does, so it appears not all of this usage can be blamed on the JVM itself: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=scala&lang2=java http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?t...
- igouy 14y agoPerhaps it is intelligent for the kind-of applications the JVM is designed for (rather than for tiny tiny toy programs).
- igouy 14y agoWhy the downvote? Do you really think the JVM memory-use should be optimised for 100 line toy programs?
- voidlogic 14y agoThere are lots of useful commandline tools written in Java that would no doubt benefit. P.S. I did not downvote.
- igouy 14y agoThat may be -- but are commandline tools the kind-of applications the JVM is designed for?