On C/C++ undefined behaviours

[retard]

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:11:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "retard" <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:i4mt6o$cam$2 at digitalmars.com...
>> Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:37:18 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "retard" <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:i4mrss$cam$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>> If you turn off the
>>>> syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on
>>>> a modern desktop.
>>>
>>> I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower
>>> than C::B or PN2 for me.
>>
>> Of course it is. You're comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> Fer cryin out loud, which one is it? Is Eclipse supposed to be "just as
> fast as any native application", or is it "of course it's slower"? First
> you say one, then you say the other.

I meant to say that Eclipse (perceivably) works just as fast as any 
(feature-wise equivalent) native application on a modern desktop. I 
recommended turning off some of the functionality to make it behave more 
like C::B and similar lightweight applications.

The idea behind desktop Java applications is that since the application 
would run 100..100000 times faster than it needs to on a modern PC, a 
2..100 times slower Java version is totally acceptable. Heck, I even use 
applications (with plugins) written in Ruby. Ruby has a lot worse VM that 
does not even do JIT compilation.

To summarize:

 - the JIT causes horrible interactive performance right after startup 
(use of the client VM might help a bit. Oracle might also be working on a 
hybrid client/server VM)
 - the JIT and the GC cause noticeable delays, but only occasionally (use 
of the new low-latency GC and tuning the VM options might help here)
 - the execution performance IS worse, but the perceivable performance is 
often acceptable
 - application platforms such as Eclipse or Netbeans provide a very high 
level of flexibility, portability, and memory safety