Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24673
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded, comp.dsp |
| Subject | Re: Labview vs. C++ |
| Date | 2016-07-21 01:20 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nmppji$1a1p$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <0_6dnR9yeqhRkg3KnZ2dnUU7-U8AAAAA@giganews.com> <nmpn5r$p0j$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 7/21/2016 12:37 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote: > A few days ago I ported a small code from Java to C++ (computing 4E9 > numbers with a certain PRNG algorithm). The computation time reduced > from several years to several days. This only says that the Java code was not well written at all. Current indications all point to Java being as fast (and sometimes even faster) than C and C++ these days. Just google it. One random link (July 18, 2016) http://blog.optionscity.com/java-vs.-c-performance-face-off-part-ii "In summary, it is clear that the raw performance of modern Java is equal to, if not superior to C++ systems, and that the quality of the code is the most important factor in the performance of the system." There are many more studies that indicate the same. Sure, there are area where C or C++ is still faster, but it will be few percentage points faster in those cases if any, not multiple of magnitudes faster. The days when Java was slow are long behind us. Choice between C/C++ and Java these days can no longer be about speed, but for other reasons specific to the project. > (In fact the task was solvable with "Brain" in several minutes - but > that's a whole different story.) > > > Marcel >
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-20 18:57 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2016-07-21 00:17 +0000
Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 12:30 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2016-07-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Labview vs. C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 12:13 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 16:50 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2016-07-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Labview vs. C++ jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-20 19:11 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2016-07-21 07:37 +0200
Re: Labview vs. C++ "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2016-07-21 01:20 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:11 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:23 -0400
Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:08 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 12:37 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 11:22 -0700
Re: Labview vs. C++ pippo2@disney.com (Jack) - 2016-07-21 23:38 +0200
Re: Labview vs. C++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-26 10:29 -0500
Re: Labview vs. C++ Paul Colin de Gloucester <Gloucester@nicht.At> - 2016-08-12 19:59 +0200
Re: Labview vs. C++ Mike Smith <email@domain.com> - 2016-09-07 20:54 +0100
csiph-web