Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35653
| From | j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Java is faster! |
| Date | 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <nsc2qk$uip$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <faster-20160923143035@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <1l9fub927k9tntoli9cddnfil6e4o74are@4ax.com> <ns93lq$fpv$1@news.albasani.net> <ns95v0$m1h$1@dont-email.me> |
Yes and Yes. Eric Sosman schrieb: > On 9/25/2016 2:05 PM, j4n bur53 wrote: >> Since Java is typesafe, and this typesafety goes >> vary far, recently, after much time, I have >> even created a runtime error when assigning >> an array cell, so the component type of the array >> didn't match the element type. > > Many Java programmers consider this a Good Thing. > >> I think there is a general limit. This typesafety >> is still ingrained in the runtime. Although casts >> are highly optimized, they don't go away. I recently >> made some other experiments, and bumpted my head >> speed wise just because of the many casts I needed. > > How did you measure the time consumed by the casts? That is, > what kind of experiment did you perform to accomplish "the same" > computation without the casts? > > Hmm: I suppose you could re-write your classes to use Object > references instead of Strings and JButtons and so on, and insert > casts as needed: > > // String s = "Hello"; > Object s = "Hello"; > > // int length = s.length(); > int length = ((String) s).length(); > > ... for some very large set of references, and then compare the > run times of the cast-free and cast-heavy versions. Did you do > something of that kind, or measure the penalty in some other way? >
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Java is faster! Roedy Green <inquiry@mindprod.com> - 2016-09-25 03:28 -0700
Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-25 20:05 +0200
Re: Java is faster! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-09-25 14:44 -0400
Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Java is faster! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-09-27 10:51 -0400
Re: Java is faster! Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2016-09-28 23:50 +0530
Re: Java is faster! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-09-28 15:14 -0400
Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-29 09:11 +0200
Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-09-29 21:24 -0400
Re: Java is faster! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 16:37 -0400
Re: Java is faster! Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 05:47 -0700
Re: Java is faster! Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-10-04 23:04 +0200
Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-09-29 21:18 -0400
csiph-web