Java compilation [was GCs in the news]

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 09:16:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 08:46:32 UTC, Russel Winder via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 10:55 +0000, Paulo Pinto via 
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> […]
>>> The JVM JIT was originally targeted to SELF, not Java.
>>
>> I think you'll find HotSpot evolved from a Smalltalk JIT 
>> originally.
>> Borland and Semantec had JVM JITs as well, Sun even licenced 
>> the
>> Semantec one for a while.
>>
>> […]
>>> Functional programming languages have AOT compilers and they 
>>> perform quite well, almost to C level in many use case cases.
>>
>> True. Java/JVM/JIT also performs very well surpassing C in 
>> many cases.
>> Indeed C++ surpasses C in many cases as well.
>
> I am suspicious. I understand that a situation can be contrived 
> such that C will lose, but in normal, sensible code the only 
> language I've ever seen reliably beat C is FORTRAN.

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/

There's no good reason for C to beat C++. Even if there were, it 
would be simple to rewrite the C++ bottleneck in C style. 
Likewise, there's no good reason for C to beat D either.

I was surprised by the Java results once they started beating C 
at certain benchmarks years ago. But the fact is it does.

Atila