Timeline for Why do people still say Java is slow?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2013 at 14:57 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 22, 2013 at 15:13 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | luis.espinal | I've been compared to Nietzsche, but never to Kant. It's a first :) To me, making implicit judgements on a technical subject without basis, and in particular, on a subject that has already been very well characterized and documented by academia and industry for the last 15 or so years, well..., it's dumb. We are in the business of making software, and we walk a thin line between science and engineering. That calls for a higher standard of thinking with little to no room for unsubstantiated implicit assumptions of that which is already quantifiable. I would like to think this is the way to go:) | |
| Oct 5, 2011 at 14:07 | comment | added | yati sagade | @luis hahaa.. nice observation. (My belief that you're a reincarnation of Kant has become even more solid ;) ) And such discussions end up in flame wars and unproductive keystrokes... According to me, one should always stick to what seems like the best tool to tackle the job at hand. Agree, Kant2 ? :P | |
| Oct 5, 2011 at 13:59 | comment | added | luis.espinal | @yati - hahaha as per the Kantian comparison, an implicit assumption was done without direct experience of the subject ;) I must admit that using the word "dumb" is incendiary. However, "X is dumber than Knuth" only describes dumbness wrt to Knuth's brilliance, and does not describe something intrinsic of X (say "X has done an act that is truly dumb"). I do believe, perhaps unfortunately, that we engineers should hold ourselves to better standards and avoid implicit assumptions on things that are complex, measurable and (already) well-documented. Java technology fits these three :/ | |
| Oct 5, 2011 at 13:37 | comment | added | yati sagade | @luis espinal You sound like Kant :) People here have made an implicit assumption that slow means slower in comparison to other practical, production-ready languages like C++. (Remember physics??) when you measure potential energy, you always measure it relative to some ground. Now going by your grammar, "X is dumb" is baseless. and "X is dumber than Knuth" does not make X an absolute dumb, as pretty much anyone can be X here. I agree calling a lang slow is not elite, but the people here who say that are not "dumb", but just happen to have made an agreed upon implicit assumption. | |
| Oct 5, 2011 at 12:42 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by rjzii | ||
| Oct 25, 2010 at 13:50 | comment | added | David Thornley | @luis.espinal: I was responding to your reason #2: that people say Java is slow because, in your opinion, they have failed to tune Java. Please also note my use of "acceptably fast". It would seem to me that something that is not "acceptably fast" is slow, and it would seem to me that something people routinely claim is slow is likely not acceptably fast. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 19:46 | comment | added | luis.espinal | @David - Obvious statement. Anyone knows that Java is slower than C++. That does not logically follow that it is slow, however. Neither mentioning of gcc flags give the comment validity. It only states that it is slower than something else. A jaguar is slower than a cheetah. Does that make the former slow? Try some engineering objectivity and ask yourself this: can one logically declare, arbitrarily, that something is slow simply because it is slower than something else without mentioning a context of operations that defines what is fast enough and for what? Can you, logically? | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:50 | comment | added | David Thornley | If I have to tune my JVM to get Java to run acceptably fast, while I don't have to tune anything (except -O2) to get C++ to run acceptably fast, then Java is slow. | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 10:19 | history | answered | luis.espinal | CC BY-SA 2.5 |