Printable View
Hi!!! ...after reading a few debates on the net about execution speeds, is C++ really faster than Java? ...It appears that some believe it is and that others believe it depends on the job of the application... any views? Its just some research I am doing for my project! To see which language to use! ...Im doing a real-time monitoring user interface to interface with some low level C audio effect algorithms that I have written!
Thanks for any opinions!
This gets asked alot, yes c++ is and can be alot faster
http://www.jelovic.com/articles/why_java_is_slow.htm
As with most things programming-related, it depends on the skill level of the coder, the algorithms used in the particular program, the platform it's executed on, and a host of other details. Benchmarks of various applications on various platforms put Java above C++ in a few areas but C++ tends to win out most of the time. If you're going to be doing some sort of time-critical application on x86-based architecture, Java is not the way to go.
thanks! ...For my final year undergrad project, I'm doing a real-time audio effects processor; this uses some specialised DSP hardware that connects to the host machine via parrellel cable; I know this is not great because its damm slow! ...the host machine runs a GUI that the user uses to select an effect and gives full control over effect variables so they can warp the signal however they fancy! this GUI has to be a real-time monitoring system and sends messages to the DSP board about the changes if any in the parameters so the DSP then changes the effect! ...the effects are all C algorithms stored in the DSP boards memory!
However, for my write-up, I have to explain why I have chosen C++ over Java for the GUI; the real reason is because I hate java, I think it sucks!
...But I can't write this! ... I have to give a few good reasons why I have chosen C++ over say Java or other OO's!!! so am just comparing speeds, but it seems as if some ppl believe Java is faster than C++, but most vice versa! however, I can't seem to find that key reason why Java would be slower! ...I will continue to search the net!!!
...and my operating system is Win XP, Pentium 4
What kind of effect/DSP hardware?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthebullet990
Are you making vst plugins?
nope... its an external DSP board, the Texas Instruments 6711 DSK, but with the PCM3003 Audio daughter card to get sampling rates of 48khz cause onboard codecs are only 8khz which isn't good for audio effects!!!
Its similar in the idea to a professional effects unit, such as the EFX1000 by pioneer, but obviously nowhere near the complexity and functionality of that thing!!! ...but the idea is for streaming audio, either for DJ use or even guitar effects! ...It has an input port, for the input data obviously, and an output port... for the output audio, connect this to ur amp and u have an effects unit!
Its only so I could try something new; DSP programming and understand a bit more about audio effects, as my hobby is DJ'ing! so it is very interesting for me!
In general, C++ is faster than java. Sure you can do contests with average C++ coders against experienced java coders and the java coders would win.
You need experience to write fast code in Java,
you need experience to write correct code in C++
:)
An expert QBASIC coder can code circles around a beginner C++ coder. But that's another story for another day. :D
Will we ever agree one day that
1. It doesn't matter which is faster,
2. It's impossible to answer this general question,
3. And when detail is brought fourth and the question answered, It still will not matter which is faster.
Speed absolutely matters. If you have two applications, and one significantly outperforms the other, it matters. If you have customers who use your application and they cannot accomplish their task in a reasonable amount of time because of the lack of speed of the application, it matters. If you are trying to accomplish as much work as possible with an application within a given time frame, it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Just because the question is beaten to death, is often irrelevent to specific contexts, and has its importance misunderstood by many, doesn't mean the question doesn't matter.
Differences in speed between two languages are not of any importance for most applications. For every 1 application you tell me it is, I can name 2 it isn't.
You sure can see past the apparent sttrictness of my previous post.
...and if your user interface takes 3ms to respond instead of 2ms... it does not matter, because humans can't notice such a difference.
Speed is a poor argument point for a UI decision. You should justify the use of C++ because you don't want your application to require a 3rd party JVM or something like that.
>> You sure can see past the apparent sttrictness of my previous post.
I felt that your exaggeration was misleading and offered my take on the subject. "Arrays are evil" statements are fine, IMO, because in 99% of cases that is true and in many cases the beginner doesn't realize that the number is that high. However, identifying which solution is more appropriate for a given problem is perfectly acceptable, and hyperbolic statements implying that speed never matters in such a discussion are just wrong. Speed does matter and should be taken into consideration even if the final resolution is that the speed difference is negligible.
Actually the "arrays are evil" is an excellent example. 99% is a gross exaggeration. And consequently could be seen as misleading. And yet no one becomes less knowledgeable when you say it and the point is taken.
Such same thing happened when I said speed doesn't matter. My point was surely well taken. You certainly understood it.
I see no particular reason why you can't state lack of familiarity with Java as your reason for choosing C++. Add to that perhaps that low-level programs are in C++ for speed reasons (and yes, for low-level programs such as signal processors, C++ is faster) and interfacing with Java would have been more complicated than interfacing with C++.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthebullet990
C++ and Java are in many ways so similar that often it's really just a matter of taste which one you choose. De gustibus non est disputandum. If the people evaluating your work have any clue, they'll know that.
Well, I suspect Mario's tongue was firmly in cheek when he wrote his post. But his basic message is right: people tend to focus much more on speed/performance of an application than is really necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
That is true of developers, hence the phenomenon of premature optimisation. That causes problems because it often turns out that premature optimisations often, in the long run, do not optimise performance at all because a compiler (which is designed with knowledge of the target machine) can often do it better than a human -- and also because, in worst cases, some premature optimisers sacrifice correctness to achieve speed and that causes a future maintenance nightmare. Professionals will focus on getting the application running correctly and then, with the help of tools like profilers, find the hot spots in an application. In other words, the performance optimisation is performed late in the development cycle, not early.
End users will focus on speed/performance when they don't need to. And, by doing so, they sacrifice their own productivity. With a word processor, for example, the speed of a particular operation rarely matters as much as the higher level features offered by the tool (eg being able to reduce errors due to typos, misspelling, grammar, incorrect referencing, ability to do backups, etc etc). But users will tend to complain about things like slow startup, speed of saving a file to disk, etc etc. Performance of such things CAN be important, but users emphasise them much more in problem reports than is necessary -- they are functions for which correctness is more important than speed. In worst cases, in some problem domains, I've encountered end users who insist on "real time performance" (by which they mean things like "instantaneous response to a GUI", not the real technical meaning) and, when given a choice between correctness and performance, will always choose performance. Despite formal analysis in those domains, in some cases, which shows that correctness is necessary for mission success, human safety, etc. My basic message is that, even when users focus on performance, the developer is doing them a disservice by catering to them.
In the (relatively rare) cases where performance is really important, it is skill of the developer that is most important. In practice, C++ will often be faster than Java, simply because it doesn't have overheads such as a virtual machine and the compiler has more opportunities to optimise for performance by getting closer to the target machine. There are also performance issues as the Java library is not as heavily optimised as the standard C++ or C libraries that are associated with most good quality compilers. The "safety" in Java usually comes at a cost -- and one of those costs is usually performance. On the other hand, in some areas, a Java application will be faster than a C++ application because Java is optimised for some types of application that C++ isn't. Consider things like distributed component frameworks (aka Beans) and it often turns out that a suite of applications written in Java will, collectively, outperform a comparable suite of similar applications written in C++ because the Java frameworks are better optimised for distributed work and more directly accessible to the developer (the balance, however, is pulled back to C++ by use of good-quality libraries, such as CORBA ORBs, written in C++). Run time techniques in Java (eg JIT) can also result in performance gains for certain types of Java applications in comparison with C++.
But, in the wider world, choice of language is not that important. I would bet in favour of a skilled developer, in either language, over an unskilled developer in the other language --- any day. Both in terms of achieving performance by squeezing the most from the tools (should that be required) and correctness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserve
C++
Java (v1.5.0)Code:real 0m0.023s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.002s
Code:real 0m0.313s
user 0m0.138s
sys 0m0.030s
C++ blows Java away in every single execution speed category where the programmer isn't totally STUPID.Code:#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
for( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
{
if( i % 2 == 0 )
{
cout << i << " is an even number! " << endl;
}
}
return 0;
}
final class even_numbers
{
public static void main( String[] args )
{
for( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
{
if( i % 2 == 0 )
{
System.out.println( i + " is an even number! " );
}
}
}
};
Where Java blows C++ away is that in Java, there is a very comprehensive API for doing many, many things (and very quickly--in terms of coding them) compared to the rather limited "standard library" that comes with C++.
For example, if you wanted to write a network-centric app in C++ that goes out, grabs a web page contents and displays it--all starting from only what the standard library provides--you would code away for a month of Sundays. In Java, you could write it in about 8 lines of code...inside of 10 minutes all with just the "standard library" that ships with the JDK.
However, after your months of toil with C++, the execution speed would still be very much faster than it would be within the Java environment, assuming that the programmer wasn't a total moron.
However, bobthebullet990, the prinicpal argument that I'd use in my paper wouldn't be execution speed, it would be that C++ gives you low level access to the hardware whereas Java provides it solely through the JNI, which is then implemented in (usually) C code.
And, for anyone who wants to continue the argument of which language is faster/slower/better/worse, just remember that the JVM is written in C! :D
:davis:
Just out of curiosity, what happens if you optimize by replacing "i < 1000" by "i != 1000" and "i % 2" by "i & 1"? (I don't have the JDK installed.)
Rubbish. There are some programmers who are stupid enough to believe that though, or to believe that your test case is representative of the complete range of problems that might be tackled by C++ or Java programmers in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
I have seen numerical benchmarks where professionally written Java code convincingly out-performed professionally written C++ code (and, in one case, both were outperformed by a Fortran code written by an amateur). Which just goes to show that all higher level languages have their strengths and weaknesses.
That doesn't enter the performance argument though. There is also the fact that, although the scope of the Java libraries is much broader than the scope of the C++ libraries, the quality of implementation is often much lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
Again, this is a productivity argument, not a performance argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
And it is invalid: all one needs to do is obtain a suitable library and the same things can be done in C++. There is a large number of good quality C++ libraries, frameworks, and development tools available, either commercially or freely available, that allow rapid development of thigns like you describe. Just as there is a large number of Java libraries, frameworks, and development tools available to do things that aren't supported by Java out of the box.
Programmers (whether they use Java or C++) who would do such months of toil without seeing if alternatives are available, would probably be classified as morons by some.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
I agree that execution speed should not be a principle argument, but hardware access is irrelevant to the majority of programmers in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
The argument I suggest is one based on engineering trade-offs between several factors: one of which is execution speed.
All that says is that C is designed for some things that Java is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
The first C compiler was written in assembler, and the first C++ compilers were written in C just like the JVM. So, extending the absurdity of your argument, we should all be doing development in assembler. But it takes considerably more expertise to write efficient assembler or machine code than it does to write efficient C.
...and, so from now on, we'll do nothing but take your word for everything, since you've seen it. In other words, if you're going to bring it up, site the resource or leave it alone, since it is worthless without the sitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
My example was trivial, but showed an order of magnitude of difference in speed execution between Java and C++.
Your argument about performance versus productivity and having available 3rd party libraries available for C++ have nothing in common with my lines of thought. It is a "pay in advance" or "pay as you go" kind of tradeoff. It has nothing to do with researching the "buy versus build" cost associated with 3rd party libraries. Even your argument doesn't account for the "total cost of ownership" of 3rd party libs when, after you buy and factor in support costs AND something still is broken or doesn't work as intended and is not adequately supported for your project needs...what then wise guy?
C++ blows Java away. If you believe otherwise, show me. My simple little example demonstrated very clearly that the "same code" in Java is an order of magnitude slower than the code in C++.
What say you of:
...which is the same code I posted previously without the printed statements for either.Code:C++
real 0m0.002s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.000s
Java
real 0m0.146s
user 0m0.082s
sys 0m0.020s
What part of execution speed don't you understand?
If you're trying to say that it is possible for someone to manufacture some element of Java code that runs more clickly than some element of C++ code, who cares? If my car blows yours off the road, hey bubba, you're the loser in the race. What it sounds like you're trying to say is that Java's "valve springs" open more quickly, even though the car lost the race due to being 10x slower...WHO CARES? Java is a dog compared to C++. Show me the code where it is faster than C++ or try not to let your foot get stuck in your mouth while trying to tell me what you've "seen."
:davis:
Why should I go find one for you? This topic is a total waste of bandwidth. Go grab a search engine and do your own search.
You want to prove Java is faster? I can find a benchmark to prove it. You want C++ to be faster than Java? I can find a benchmark to prove that too.
I can find a benchmark out there to prove anything I want. That's why they're all worthless.
Quzah.
Here is another example:Quote:
Originally Posted by robatino
Code:C++
int main()
{
int i = 0;
do
{
++i;
} while( i != 1000 );
}
real 0m0.001s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.001s
Java
final class speed
{
public static void main( String[] args )
{
int i = 0;
do
{
++i;
} while( i != 1000 );
}
}
real 0m0.142s
user 0m0.077s
sys 0m0.026s
:davis:
I can prove that C++ is slower than C++. Did you know that?
Not all compilers are created equal. The point is, your "benchmarks" are a joke.
Quzah.
I like the sited (from your Wikipedia link):Quote:
Originally Posted by quzah
http://www.jelovic.com/articles/why_java_is_slow.htm
...or:
"Why Java Will Always Be Slower than C++
by Dejan Jelovic"
...and, if this topic is such a waste of bandwidth, why are you contributing to it? :D
:davis:
Because I have plenty of bandwidth to waste. :)
Quzah.
Please stop asking this stupid question.
We don't care which is faster. If you want to use Java then go ahead. Why do all the Javaaites always insist on trying to making everyone see thing their way. Maybe they think they have to in order to justify the existence of such a horrid language.
Dunno.
The fact that you prefer C++ is a perfectly good reason for you to be using it. You should always use the language you are most comfortable with, unless there is a huge advantage to using the other language.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthebullet990
Interpreted java is slower because the byte code has to be translated into machine code at runtime, an extra step that C++ does not have. But this does not apply with Just-In-Time Compiled java programs.
Oh my its decided! java is slower!
What do *you* think you're actually testing here? this is nothing more than a I/O system test of 1 java and c++ implementation.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
And then, this just shows that you are a mediocre java programmer:
For instance, have you any idea what this line is doing?
System.out.println( i + " is an even number! " );
You're using way more objects and dynamic memory allocations than is necessary. Those not needed 1000 objects may trigger a garbage collection sweep which will of course make you app slower.
Try rewriting it with StringBuffer and Stringbuffer.append and give the results again
I like Java, I prefer C++, I like Perl, I dislike Python.
What does that mean in the grand scheme of things? Eh, nothing.
I hate performance tests like the above, yay your implementation of C++ can count faster than your implementation of Java. And yes, C++ will most likely outperform Java by far every time in that test. How about you write the same exact thing in ASM, and LISP, Perl, that way we can hit each type of language and in truth, compare and create absolutely useless information.
Java's perk is that it can be 'compiled' once and run everywhere, it is a higher level language than C++ and isn't meant to fill the shoes of it, it is meant to have portability, good OOP design from the ground up, and lots of built-ins.
Sure you can write the same program in both of them, then try to optimize them as much as you can, then compare speed. But, really is that the only measure of a program? What about deadlines? Preferred technology by manager/bean counters? The target platform(s)?
There are too many variables to define one as the superior language, last time I checked, speed isn't everything. Programs getting completed and maintained, now that is something that is important, and that depends on the programmer(s), if they aren't happy with the language (and it is a home project) don't expect the program any time soon.
I prefer C++, but I have intentionally used Java so that I didn't have to worry much about the portability of my code and my friends with Macs could use my application too.
So how about every stops stroking their epeen's in an effort to see has the larger one, they are tools, different tools are better for different jobs.
blasphemy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraithan
Aside from I/O system speed, the above tests also reflect the JVM startup overhead, which will always be there, and always become insignificant on any real tests.
That's why you do performance measuring inside the program, not outside.
Well IMHO it doesn't matter which is faster if I can just display "Hello World!" fast enough. :D
My instructor this past fall claimed that an equivalent program that was originally written in C++ is actually faster when written in Java. So should I strangle him?
-Capt
No, just the people who wrote the original C++ program ;)
lol, well since he was saying ANY C++ program we better start strangling ourselvesQuote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
That is what my instructor was implying so we're in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserve
well, it's completely retarded to say things like that. He probably just likes java more because he was too incompetent to learn C++ completely :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMorgan
actually, you're probably quite accurate. He is a Java programmer by trade and was forced to teach C++ this past semester by the dept head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserve
Moved to the comedy store since it's degenerated into a "yeah but" argument.
I'm really not going into the debate of which is faster, C++ or Java.
So, you can stop reading now.
There's a strong attitude from Java programmers towards C++. Not all, but a sizeable number. Sizeable enough to probably become representative.
I'm not really sure why. Maybe because the syntax is similar. Maybe because bot languages can be used to solve the same problems on most programming domains. There's simply an aversion towards C, and especially C++. And traditionally, the argument that gets always debated, is that of speed. I'm not surprised though. There's also the same strong attitude from most C or C++ programmers towards programming languages the likes of Visual Basic or Delphi, for instance. It reveals the same ignorance. No one is perfect and C++ programmers are certainly not an exception.
That programmers, some of them being professional programmers, actually discuss speed as an argument for which is a better programming language is overwhelmingly sad. It is really the state of things. They learn nothing in the University, and they learn even less in the work place where the few remnants of a sane programming culture of the 80s and 90s is quickly be thrown to the waste bin.
Except for performance critical applications, or applications dabbling in those few areas still in existence today where computational power is still in high demand (3D, for instance), speed is of no concern. None whatsoever. In fact, as CornedBee pointed out, speed concerns have the power to turns against the programmer and create a much harder to maintain application or even a buggy one.
It's an ignorant thing to say that one language is better than another because its faster. And under most circumstances it is even ignorant to try and compare languages based on speed. Programming languages are certainly meant to be fast. Of course. It would be ridiculous otherwise. But today's performances on most top programming languages is very agreeable to the demands of most applications. The differences are minimal and for most applications (and I mean a way lot, darn it!) one can concentrate on other much more important aspects of the programming language; Can it be used to solve my problem? Does it have the right tools? Will it take me more or less time to solve my problem? Will it allow me to quickly maintain my code? etc...
Speed? Speed is for whiners!
bravo ;)
I don't know... Maybe it is only my bad luck?.. But... I have to support some suite of applications... Ok we have some agents that should work in RT and speed is essential... (have we tried 4 CPU Intel Server,... yeah... sadly it is not enough... Let's try to split more...) So here is no question how essential speed is...Quote:
The differences are minimal and for most applications (and I mean a way lot, darn it!) one can concentrate on other much more important aspects of the programming language; Can it be used to solve my problem? Does it have the right tools? Will it take me more or less time to solve my problem? Will it allow me to quickly maintain my code? etc...
But on the other hand we have a report generator. Let's forget about speed and concentrate on... what was that? "Can it be used to solve my problem? Does it have the right tools? Will it take me more or less time to solve my problem? Will it allow me to quickly maintain my code? etc" Yes... it works fine, till it goes to some customer that want to generate report for his simulation that was running during a month... And he does not want to wait 3-4 hours till the report will be build (he is not intrested to know what number of Megabytes to be parsed to generate report, he just wants to get the report in minutes, not hours)...
so no, I don't have any application to support, where the time issue is not critical... Bad luck?
I would agree with you 100% if not for the fact that you're only looking at your own domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
The speed issue is no issue at all anymore on desktop and client/server applications.
For instance, I had to make a big web application (on windows) a few years ago in which the customer demanded a certain performance. Like 20 web requests a second should be possible and 1 request involved parsing parameters, a database lookup, transform the results via xml/xsl to html and send back to browser. All that in 50ms you say, thats impossible! Of course not, we didnt have to look at all at code performance because if the application turned out to be too slow another server was added. In the end we ended up with 6 servers put behind a load balancer with the webserver tweaked for performance and all that crap. Performed like a maniac!
Where I dont agree with you is that I code gambling machines (on video) now on an m68k processor with a bit crappy videocard to say the least. Coding without regard to performance is just not possible. You will meet the system boundaries all too soon and you will find yourself constantly in a battle against the processor/amount of memory.
Could be historical. Java was created as "a better C++". Quite literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I don't think there's a precedent for this situation: where one language that was from the beginning meant to be "better" than another gained a sizeable following, but the original language survived, too. That would explain why there's so much hate between the two camps.
Personally, I simply enjoy that knowing both languages is so little additional hassle, and use both, whichever I happen to need at the moment. (My primary domain currently being web applications, that's all too frequently Java.)
So what are you saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by vart
That on one programming language you can cut that down to minutes while on another it takes hours? Because that's what this is all about. Not performance issues spawned from bad programming, but speed comparison between programming languages.
No. You are just missing the point of this debate.Quote:
so no, I don't have any application to support, where the time issue is not critical... Bad luck?
Your words, not mine.Quote:
I'm really not going into the debate of which is faster, C++ or Java.
I'm not into debate. Have nothing to say about the issue. And don't want to.Quote:
No. You are just missing the point of this debate.
You said that for most application the time issue is not critical.
I said - I have no application to support where the time issue is not critical. That's all. I make no futher suggestions, just stated the fact.
> That's all. I make no futher suggestions, just stated the fact.
Fair enough.
I'm glad to know I'm right when I account for exceptions.
A fact that nicely points out the real issue: speed is far more about code design than the language used. If an application that generates a report from some data reads all data in, begins swapping like mad, to generate a report, then the most l33t assembly won't make it even remotely as fast as a program that reads the data incrementally (assuming the report allows that), even if that other program is written in JavaScript or Ruby (the current Ruby implementation is one of the slowest languages in wide use out there).
Get Stuffed! Don't try to act like I don't know what is happening "behind the scenes" simply because I used it in the manner shown in my "test." I started programming in Java with JDK v.71 on Solaris before it was supported on any other platforms. Did you happen to notice that I also wrote it without any output? C++ is still way faster. Some would argue due to the JVM startup time. I don't care why, C++ and Java side by side, C++ will always be faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserve
Having discussed, at length, the thinking and activities that went into the creation of the Java programming language with James Gosling, I can say for sure that it wasn't ever meant to be a "better C++" as was offered by CornedBee. In fact, Gosling told me that the "best aspects of many" languages were borrowed from for the creation of Java, which was in response to my observerations of how Objective C-like it was in terms of GC, "import" vs include, "mother-of-all-objects" and single inheritance/interfaces.
So, the bottom line is Java is for those who can't program in C++! :D
As for being a mediocre Java programmer, at least I know that Java is capitalized!
...but, since you're the expert Java programmer and I'm simply mediocre, maybe you'll realize that there isn't even a need for a StringBuffer and the append call?!
Java is a DOG WITH FLEAS...if you need speed, you need C!Code:final class even_numbers
{
public static void main( String[] args )
{
for( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
{
if( i % 2 == 0 )
{
//System.out.println( i + " is an even number! " );
System.out.print( i );
System.out.println( " is an even number! " );
}
}
}
};
real 0m0.185s
user 0m0.135s
sys 0m0.034s
C++
real 0m0.017s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.002s
Java using StringBuffer (not printing the contents of the SB)
real 0m0.138s
user 0m0.082s
sys 0m0.018s
Java using StringBuffer (printing the contents of the SB)
real 0m0.189s
user 0m0.134s
sys 0m0.024s
And, since you're the world's gift to Java, maybe you'd be happy to learn that the JDK documentation recommends using StringBuilder over StringBuffer in single threaded applications. I'll quote the JDK documentation:
"Where possible, it is recommended that this class be used in preference to StringBuffer as it will be faster under most implementations."
:davis:
Why do you keep posting stats about 1000 iterations of nothing? Do you honestly think that measures something meaningfull? You said yourself that your example was trivial, yet you still quote your results. The fact that the example is pointless nullifies any result you obtain.
> In fact, Gosling told me
He didn't tell you enough.
> Java is a DOG WITH FLEAS...if you need speed, you need C!
If you need speed you need a better computer. Meanwhile you haven't been listening...
Hopefully you've obtained 2nd grade and realize that meaningful doesn't have two "L"s, but obviously, that is a waste of everyone's time here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
The example shows that for the same code in C++ versus Java, that C++ is faster. Show me the same code in Java that is faster than in C++ or STFU.
:davis:
It's a bad comparison, C++ has had 5+ more years of optimazation and the compiler optimazation changes from year to year are starting to slow down; Java on the other hand is actively getting faster in its implementations. So I think the choice of which to use should depend on other factors (I personaly don't use Java because I use FreeBSD and it used to always be a .......... to install the JVM, so I am kinda biased). So instead of focusing on the current speeds, look instead at the projected speeds, in the near future (due to it becoming open source) I think Java implementations are going to become near the speed of C++.
Because (and I think this is the second time I've said this to you), this isn't a place where we critique every detail of everyones English. I'm almost certain that the main subject of this board is programming, unless you know about a hidden section that focuses on being extremely anal about the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
> Hopefully you've obtained 2nd grade and realized that meaningful doesn't have two "L"s, but obviously, that is a waste of everyone's time here...
same goes to you.
> The example shows that for the same code in C++ versus Java, that C++ is faster. Show me the same code in Java that is faster than in C++ or STFU.
Why? Do you think you made a point with your pathetic little example?
"Look C++ is faster than Java because of these 10 lines of code". Do you even realize how ridiculous your whole argument is?
Write something significant and come back to us, perhaps if it were to... do something?
Or better yet, get an open mind, other languages exist and prosper for a reason, even if you don't like it. You can always just never let Java code execute on your computer and feel your leetness with all the speed.
EDIT: Wow :davis: you got some balls, telling professionals to 'STFU' 'cause C++ executes a bit faster (which would become trivial in scaled examples.)
Well, you have used a specific example in an attempt to prove a universal statement, so your statement remains unproven. Even if you did manage to prove it, as pointed out by others in this thread, your conclusion only matters in some cases.Quote:
C++ is still way faster. Some would argue due to the JVM startup time. I don't care why, C++ and Java side by side, C++ will always be faster.
I wasn't aware one could obtain 2nd grade...where do you put it once you've obtained it?
:D
Anyways, I think the only place Java is going to excel consistently is on Java-based cellphones...
Next time try and write your godly code at the first attempt then
The timings already went from 0.313 to 0.138 which is 3 times as fast on such a stupid example
I cant believe you keep defending this stupid example when you're the lord of the java codeQuote:
Originally Posted by :davis:
everyone seems to be in favor of Java.
More, we are in favor of other languages existing for other purposes. The bashing of a language for no good reason (which is the case here) causes us to become defensive of it. The majority of us on here have open minds about software development.
You use the language that's suited for the particular application...it's as simple as that.
It may seem that way, but it's a matter of being objective. If you look at the example :davis: posted, the program startup time is also being timed.Quote:
Originally Posted by orion-
Cool. I dj/produce too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthebullet990
What kind of music you spin?