On Mar 6, 3:46=C2=A0am, apple2fr...{at}gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:46=C2=A0pm, sicklittlemonkey  wrote=
:> On Mar 5, 8:35=C2=A0pm, apple2fr...{at}gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > This is true in theory; however in practice I have yet to experience
> > > any Java program running more quickly (or with less memory) than an
> > > equivalent C++ program on any platform.
>
> > Experience away. I hope you'll excuse a C example:http://bytonic.de/htm=
l/benchmarks.html
> > (Top right data cell.)
>
> How many benchmarks did you have to search through before you came
> across one that showed Java being faster than C or C++? =C2=A0I'll bet
> quite a few.
>
> Tryhttp://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=3Dall=E2=8C=
=A9=3Djav...
> for a better comparison.

To the extent that these benchmarks demonstrate anything useful (which
is debatable), they clearly show that the speed differences between
the two aren't very significant. C++ tends to come out on top by a
small margin in most, Java in some. As a selection criteria, it's
useless.

As for memory usage, Java is always worse, sometimes by an order of
magnitude and then some. Fortunately though, this difference is only
extreme in very small programs (which don't use much memory anyway)
and the gap closes to a few percentage points as the application size
grows. As a selection criteria, it's also useless.

That about runs us out of commercial reasons to prefer C++ over Java.
Of course, for personal projects there's always aesthetics, and it's
pretty obvious we have some different ideas there ;-)

Matt
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32