3 ms·

I don't think people who really know what they're talking about say that. Sure the JVM is slow to start so there's latency involved in getting Java up and goin

• yati 14y ago
  "Fast" is subjective. "Fast enough for X" is better, but still subjective unless you have benchmarks. That said, I agree Java is good enough for, say, long running web-services where you take the JVM start-up hit once. http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/ http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• dlitz 14y ago
  ... which is useless when you're trying to develop Java code. Java also eats a lot of RAM in many applications (J2EE apps can easily eat a few GB of RAM), so combined with the multi-second latency for startup, you're basically confined to a single programming model: One giant, long-running, multithreaded program.
  • democracy 14y ago
    Not necessarily. It "might" consume a lot of memory depending on your particular application. We recently went live with a suite of applications (5 apps all together, both web and backend), processing tons of data in "real-time" in multiple threads and after a few days of usage someone noticed it was running with default 512M of RAM (8gb planned). Considering the load it is processing - it is very impressive. And yes, it is using all of J2EE in WebSphere with mq, hibernate, spring core, spring integration, etc. BUT I could not make JIRA work with 512 linode, had to upgrade to 1m and later on switch to jira-cloud as it was failing all the time.
• Mikera 14y ago
  The JVM isn't even that slow to start nowadays: a simple hello world app runs in about 0.1sec on my machine.