On C/C++ undefined behaviours

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.449.1282374676.13841.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Friday 20 August 2010 22:52:37 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.444.1282368222.13841.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>
>> > I expect that your typical desktop application would do far better
>> > performance-wise when written in Java than Eclipse has done. But either
>> > because
>> > Java isn't generally good enough for application development or because
>> > people
>> > think that it isn't there don't seem to be very many desktop 
>> > applications
>> > which
>> > are written in Java. So, it's hard to say.
>>
>> The best C/C++ <-> Java application comparison I can think of
>> off-the-top-of-my-head would be uTorrent and Azureus (That's the actual
>> Azureus, not Vuze - I don't care what the creators claim, Vuze is a
>> *completely* different program.)  uTorrent and Azureus are 
>> nearly-identical
>> in purpose, features and UI. uTorrent is smooth as silk. Azureus is a bit
>> sluggish (certainly not Eclipse sluggish, but no where near uTorrent).
>> uTorrent is C/C++. Azureus is Java.
>>
>> And just overall, the majority of responsive, non-bloaty software I've 
>> used
>> *has* been natively-compiled stuff. The majority of sluggish, bloated
>> software I've used has been some form of interpreted code or VM, such as
>> JVM or .NET. So even if we're comparing apples and oranges, if Farm A
>> makes apples that are usually juicy and sweet, and Farm B makes oranges
>> that usually aren't, I'm going to feel fairly confident in saying that
>> Farm A kicks Farm B's ass.
>
> Those seem to be reasonable comparisons. Of course, you don't choose Java 
> or
> .NET because it gets you efficient code (though you'd probably like 
> efficient code).
> You use them for reasons like fast development time and (for Java at 
> least)
> portability. The gains in maintenance and development time are easily 
> large
> enough to justify the loss in efficiency on many (perhaps even most) 
> software
> projects. Of course, there are projects where Java and .NET don't cut it, 
> but
> they often do. Hopefully D will prove to be a solution with development 
> benefits
> on par with Java and .NET and efficiency benefits on par with C++.
>

Yup. Good points. If it weren't for D, and I had to use C or C++ for 
native-code apps, I wouldn't hesitate at using a .NET or JVM language for 
whatever projects I could.