GCJ vs. D

[David Medlock]

Kyle Furlong wrote:
> David Medlock wrote:
> 
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> 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...?
>>>
>>
>> If you were going to develop a 3D game, or a new scripting language, 
>> or some other low level software D beats Java easily.
>>
>> Not only that, D is superior as a language to Java, IMO.
>>
>> See:
>> news://news.digitalmars.com:119/dvreco$hf1$1@digitaldaemon.com
>>
>> Java's templates are an absolute joke. For about 30% more typing we 
>> get homogenous containers and no casting in generic methods.  Whoopee, 
>> Sun.
>> They added aspects but shot down DBC.
>> They still do not have any workable type inference at all.
>> It took 10 years to add primitive boxing.
>>
>> The only place they win is support, users knowledgeable in the 
>> platform, and tools.
> 
> 
> These three things are *NOT* trivial. They are actually essential to the 
> success of the language.
> 
>>
>> -DavidM

If they were trivial I wouldnt have even mentioned them.

Support requires money and an organization to take responsibility.
Users knowledge is chicken-and-egg with the language popularity.
Tools require, well, people to write them.

-DavidM