GCJ vs. D

[Tom]

I'm a Java detractor in general (I do Java for some tasks where I work). 
  Though I really hate it very much because of it slowness (among other 
aspects), I'll have to say that the article is far from been made upon 
good scientific methods. Not so serious IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I totally sympathize with the article but if I'd 
have to embrace a serious position, I'd have to say it's too _light_ to 
be persuasive and satisfying.

--
Tom;

Hong escribió:
> I am doubtful that GCJ can close the gap much further
> 
> This page gives very good analysis on why Java is so damn slow, bytecode + VM is
> not the only reason (which is the only one that GCJ removed).
> 
> http://www.jelovic.com/articles/why_java_is_slow.htm
> 
> Hong
> 
> In article <e0hvns$l0r$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Jeremy says...
>> What do you think:
>>
>> GCJ (native Java GNU compiler project) vs. DMD?
>>
>> My thoughts:
>>
>> * DMD is still much more faster and memory efficient, but GCJ v4 is closing the
>> gap
>> * GCJ allows you to compile Java as if it was just another language, but your
>> code can still be made into bytecode (so you ideally get the best of both
>> worlds)
>> * GCJ can interface with C/C++ (CNI)
>> * DMD lets you get away from everything-is-an-object which can be nice...
>>
>> I think it is going to be harder for DMD to compete if such a strong native Java
>> compiler is making good progress...?