1. Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
Man oh man!
Crap!
I wasted all my time coding in Eu!
Heh? Not realy, but for RDS to claim Euphoria is the
fastest interpeter around, is just ABSURD!
I never coded in JAVA before, and I don't know JAVA,
but while searching the net for some C libraries, I
encountered a JAVA site stating that JAVA,
interpreted, is nearly as fast as compiled, optimised,
C! Using Visual C++!
Java is an easy to use interpreted language with
garbage collection and run-time error checking.
It's multi-platform, open-source, and even has native
compilers! Plus several JAVA To C translators!
Man, I'm positive Euphoria code, translated to C, will
NOT beat interpretted JAVA. Positive. And don't get me
started about what kind of performance you get once
you COMPILE Java.
The fastest JAVA interpreter around, to my knowledge,
is Jikes from IBM, and is free, plus Open Source!
Create DLLs, web sites, 3D Engines, and even operating
systems in JAVA! And it's extremely fast! Actually,
how does 60 times faster than Eu sound?
I know it's hard to believe, but check out some sites:
- Get Jikes (supports Windows 95/NT, AIX, OS/2, Linux
and Solaris Sparc), aswell as other JAVA
interpretters, for free!
Some JAVA Vs. VC++ benchmarks (Only 7% slower on
Floating Point operations!), and some other crap.
But now let's get down to business shall we?
I remember Robert once saying you couldn't find a
faster interpretter than Euphoria. Why is JAVA out
there then? Why is it free, portable, open-source,
safe, extensive, developer supported, garbage
collected, sequence bearing, and easy to use?
I'm beginning to think Java realy did drop in
popularity because of bad critique from crappy
developers that hate Sun Microsystems.
You know what?
I'll do all yall the favor of translating all Euphoria
benchmarks to Interpreted JAVA, and let's see, once
and for all, who's the fastest baby on the block.
Mike The Spike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
2. Re: Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
Thanks for the elaborate explenation, Jeffrey!
What would be nice to see is Euphoria being as fast as
JAVA, but keeping its fast sequences.
It would be unstoppable then.
Maybe Rob should
A. Optimise the internal code produced by the
interpretter, using age-old optimisation techniques.
B. Implement a JIT compiler instead. Euphoria only
runs on x86 based systems, so it's not that big a
deal.
Maybe one of us should write a Euphoria interpretter,
in Euphoria, that translates to Machine Code, but uses
Euphoria's built-in sequence type to store sequences.
Plus, translate all that to C using the translator,
and you have one mighty fast Euphoria implementation..
This way we Eu coders finally get a break and don't
have to grab on to JAVA or another language for speed.
Untill then, consider me a JAVA coder aswell.
I'm learning it now and find it very easy, with some
good OOP support and fine library routines.
Mike The Spike
--- Jeffrey Fielding <JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jack Cat wrote:
>
> > Man oh man!
> > Crap!
> > I wasted all my time coding in Eu!
> > Heh? Not realy, but for RDS to claim Euphoria is
> the
> > fastest interpeter around, is just ABSURD!
> > I never coded in JAVA before, and I don't know
> JAVA,
> > but while searching the net for some C libraries,
> I
> > encountered a JAVA site stating that JAVA,
> > interpreted, is nearly as fast as compiled,
> optimised,
> > C! Using Visual C++!
>
> Well, I'm not sure it's quite that fast, but Java
> can be very fast.
>
> > Java is an easy to use interpreted language with
> > garbage collection and run-time error checking.
> > It's multi-platform, open-source, and even has
> native
> > compilers! Plus several JAVA To C translators!
> >
> > Man, I'm positive Euphoria code, translated to C,
> will
> > NOT beat interpretted JAVA. Positive. And don't
> get me
> > started about what kind of performance you get
> once
> > you COMPILE Java.
>
> Well, of course you could translate a simple
> Euphoria program to C and
> optimize it heavily, and then it would probably beat
> interpreted Java...
> of course, many Java interpreters these days do
> compile the Java bytecode
> through JIT.
>
> > The fastest JAVA interpreter around, to my
> knowledge,
> > is Jikes from IBM, and is free, plus Open Source!
>
> To my knowledge, Jikes is a C port of the javac Java
> source to bytecodes
> compiler (which itself is in Java, making it very
> slow sometimes since it
> has to load the Java interpreter). I have Jikes, and
> it bytecode-compiles
> Java really fast. I also use IBM's JDK for the
> interpreter since Sun's
> interpreter for Linux kept freezing.
>
> > Create DLLs, web sites, 3D Engines, and even
> operating
> > systems in JAVA! And it's extremely fast!
> Actually,
> > how does 60 times faster than Eu sound?
>
> Well, I think creating DLLs in Java is a little
> far-fetched, and for 3D
> engines you probably want C... not only is Java a
> little slower, but the
> graphics routines can be really slow - you could, of
> course, call an
> external library... but it seems a little pointless
> to me. Web sites, of
> course, can be a great use for Java. For operating
> systems, you'd need
> some lower-level code below that, of course.
>
> For many purposes, Java can be much, much faster
> than Euphoria (translate
> sieve.ex to Java, for example)... but the Java
> equivalent of sequences is
> sad compared to Euphoria's. For one thing, for the
> same flexability that
> Euphoria allows, you'd have to use the built-in
> Number classes (or your
> own derivation thereof). Note that these are
> objects, not primitive types,
> so they are much, much slower than ints, floats etc.
>
> > I know it's hard to believe
> <snip>
> Not at all. Java is a good language, and it can be
> quite fast sometimes.
>
> > But now let's get down to business shall we?
> > I remember Robert once saying you couldn't find a
> > faster interpretter than Euphoria. Why is JAVA out
> > there then? Why is it free, portable, open-source,
> > safe, extensive, developer supported, garbage
> > collected, sequence bearing, and easy to use?
>
> When Java first came out, it was SLOW. Euphoria, I
> bet, can easily beat
> the older versions of Java. However, without taking
> the flexability of
> sequences into consideration, Euphora pales in
> comparison to the
> speed of today's Java interpreters since the Java
> interpreters do Just In
> Time compilation.
>
> > I'm beginning to think Java realy did drop in
> > popularity because of bad critique from crappy
> > developers that hate Sun Microsystems.
> >
> > You know what?
> > I'll do all yall the favor of translating all
> Euphoria
> > benchmarks to Interpreted JAVA, and let's see,
> once
> > and for all, who's the fastest baby on the block.
> >
>
> I've translated sieve.ex, and Java beats Euphoria
> down on this one. I
> think you'll find, however, that Java's advantage is
> not nearly so great,
> if it has any at all, on sequence.ex and other
> benchmarks that manipulate
> sequences a lot.
>
> Jeff Fielding
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
3. Re: Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jack Cat wrote:
> Man oh man!
> Crap!
> I wasted all my time coding in Eu!
> Heh? Not realy, but for RDS to claim Euphoria is the
> fastest interpeter around, is just ABSURD!
> I never coded in JAVA before, and I don't know JAVA,
> but while searching the net for some C libraries, I
> encountered a JAVA site stating that JAVA,
> interpreted, is nearly as fast as compiled, optimised,
> C! Using Visual C++!
Well, I'm not sure it's quite that fast, but Java can be very fast.
> Java is an easy to use interpreted language with
> garbage collection and run-time error checking.
> It's multi-platform, open-source, and even has native
> compilers! Plus several JAVA To C translators!
>
> Man, I'm positive Euphoria code, translated to C, will
> NOT beat interpretted JAVA. Positive. And don't get me
> started about what kind of performance you get once
> you COMPILE Java.
Well, of course you could translate a simple Euphoria program to C and
optimize it heavily, and then it would probably beat interpreted Java...
of course, many Java interpreters these days do compile the Java bytecode
through JIT.
> The fastest JAVA interpreter around, to my knowledge,
> is Jikes from IBM, and is free, plus Open Source!
To my knowledge, Jikes is a C port of the javac Java source to bytecodes
compiler (which itself is in Java, making it very slow sometimes since it
has to load the Java interpreter). I have Jikes, and it bytecode-compiles
Java really fast. I also use IBM's JDK for the interpreter since Sun's
interpreter for Linux kept freezing.
> Create DLLs, web sites, 3D Engines, and even operating
> systems in JAVA! And it's extremely fast! Actually,
> how does 60 times faster than Eu sound?
Well, I think creating DLLs in Java is a little far-fetched, and for 3D
engines you probably want C... not only is Java a little slower, but the
graphics routines can be really slow - you could, of course, call an
external library... but it seems a little pointless to me. Web sites, of
course, can be a great use for Java. For operating systems, you'd need
some lower-level code below that, of course.
For many purposes, Java can be much, much faster than Euphoria (translate
sieve.ex to Java, for example)... but the Java equivalent of sequences is
sad compared to Euphoria's. For one thing, for the same flexability that
Euphoria allows, you'd have to use the built-in Number classes (or your
own derivation thereof). Note that these are objects, not primitive types,
so they are much, much slower than ints, floats etc.
> I know it's hard to believe
<snip>
Not at all. Java is a good language, and it can be quite fast sometimes.
> But now let's get down to business shall we?
> I remember Robert once saying you couldn't find a
> faster interpretter than Euphoria. Why is JAVA out
> there then? Why is it free, portable, open-source,
> safe, extensive, developer supported, garbage
> collected, sequence bearing, and easy to use?
When Java first came out, it was SLOW. Euphoria, I bet, can easily beat
the older versions of Java. However, without taking the flexability of
sequences into consideration, Euphora pales in comparison to the
speed of today's Java interpreters since the Java interpreters do Just In
Time compilation.
> I'm beginning to think Java realy did drop in
> popularity because of bad critique from crappy
> developers that hate Sun Microsystems.
>
> You know what?
> I'll do all yall the favor of translating all Euphoria
> benchmarks to Interpreted JAVA, and let's see, once
> and for all, who's the fastest baby on the block.
>
I've translated sieve.ex, and Java beats Euphoria down on this one. I
think you'll find, however, that Java's advantage is not nearly so great,
if it has any at all, on sequence.ex and other benchmarks that manipulate
sequences a lot.
Jeff Fielding
4. Re: Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
> What would be nice to see is Euphoria being as fast as
> JAVA, but keeping its fast sequences.
> It would be unstoppable then.
I'm not too sure about how fast java is, but the hype says its got
much faster than I remember it being : )
> Maybe Rob should
> A. Optimise the internal code produced by the
> interpretter, using age-old optimisation techniques.
Again, we're not gonna see much until the dust settles on the Eu2C
translator. But hold your requests til that time comes...
> B. Implement a JIT compiler instead. Euphoria only
> runs on x86 based systems, so it's not that big a
> deal.
JIT compiler? I'll have to look at the code for javas JIT compiler, but
this seems a bit astray from interpreted euphoria?
> Maybe one of us should write a Euphoria interpretter,
> in Euphoria, that translates to Machine Code, but uses
> Euphoria's built-in sequence type to store sequences.
There was actually such a thing started by David Cuny, I believe,
but its slow as molasses so I hear, and only halfway works.
However, I don't quite know if it translated down to machine code...
> Plus, translate all that to C using the translator,
> and you have one mighty fast Euphoria implementation..
C-Eu-Eu-C? That's supposed to be faster going thru 4 layers?
Makes no sense...
> This way we Eu coders finally get a break and don't
> have to grab on to JAVA or another language for speed.
I'm just fine with Eu's speed m'self, but for graphics, i'll wait on the
side til I see some good OGL/DX wrappers...
> Untill then, consider me a JAVA coder aswell.
I sorta thought you already are?
> I'm learning it now and find it very easy, with some
> good OOP support and fine library routines.
I never got the hang of it... :-\
--"LEVIATHAN"
5. Re: Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:15:11 -0800, Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Java is an easy to use interpreted language with
>garbage collection and run-time error checking.
>It's multi-platform, open-source, and even has native
>compilers! Plus several JAVA To C translators!
Java is interpreted AND COMPILED!!!!!
6. Re: Interpretted JAVA Vs. Compiled VC++: Java Wins!
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:12:23 -0800, Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Untill then, consider me a JAVA coder aswell.
>I'm learning it now and find it very easy, with some
>good OOP support and fine library routines.
Good for you! I love Java's implementation of sockets(I've coded an IRC
server that kinda broke logic-wise, a web server, a bot for IRC, and a
one-on-one chat program)!
- Matt
