View Single Post
Capt'n Corrupt's Avatar
Posts: 3,524 | Thanked: 2,958 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant
#123
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
Huh ? The guy explains fairly solidly in what way were the original C++ benchmarks inferior in terms of unoptimal code, i.e. things not done as one would if he was thinking with a 'C++ head' instead of just porting the Java code to C++.
I was referring to the post that you replied to. I should have been more clear.

Another, good link explaining why interpreted code can be faster than fully compiled one, beside the two I already mentioned and which may be too technical and theoretic, is this:
http://scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
(It is kind of "old" also, but the facts haven't changed since then.)

Here is a relatively fresh benchmark test between Java and C++:
It's a tie!
It's bull****, pardon my language. I have yet to see a benchmark that does not fall into the trap of the author being more proficient with one language than the other, and therefore skewing the results by his 'stronger' language getting a bias. Or you know, realizing that there are different C++ compilers in the world. 3 years ago, most of my Java apps beat my C++ apps speedwise, simply because I knew a lot better how Java works and what is expensive. Nowadays, my C++ runs circles around my Java. So there, there is only one language benchmark that is worth more than a dime - real life.
My question is: where is "all into the trap of the author being more proficient with one language than the other, and therefore skewing the results by his 'stronger' language getting a bias" in the link?
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post: