[lug] Development & reporting tool choices

[Davide Del Vento]

Scott,
I do agree that "compiled" (I mean like C, not like java) languages
have their place, especially where I work (NCAR).

I think the point Rob was making is that if you really want to squeeze
all the performance from a code, you have to become crazy about
compiling options (and this, again, is especially true where I work),
and then the binary will be incompatible even with processors of the
same architecture, but slightly different features.

On the other hand, the java JIT compiler knows exactly where the code
is running, and can automatically do some aggressive optimizations
without losing portability (e.g. it does optimize memory prefetches
according to the cache size)

So yes, if you work hard C is faster. But on the lazy approach, in
usual circumstances, java is fast enough, and it can be even faster if
your C executable is compiled without aggressive optimizations (which
you might want to do, in order to preserve portability).

Bye,
;Dav

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 21:00, Scott Rohling <scott.rohling at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um - could you explain yourself?  You compile code once.. not every time
> it's run.  Interpreting a program each time it's run to executable code
> (essentially a compile) takes more CPU - not less..   or am I just
> misunderstanding (entirely possible) your assertion?
>
> Compiled languages are what operating systems and high performance code are
> written in..   so why is it 'beyond' you to understand?
>
> Scott