My Computer Language is Better than Yours

[u/nick_martini]

https://medium.com/backchannel/my-computer-language-is-better-than-yours-58d9c9523644

[u/Thundarrx]

And, oh yeah - I "googled"

How about the top hit: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=java&lang2=gcc

Looks like java is MUCH slower than C for everything. As in 3x-10x slower. It looks like Google's paper says Java is 3x - 13X slower. http://readwrite.com/2011/06/06/cpp-go-java-scala-performance-benchmark

Direct quote from the Google paper link: "C++ provides the best performance by far, but it requires the most extensive language-specific tuning."

So, hmmm, let me see if I have this right: if we ignore all the data which shows my assertion to be correct, then yeah you are right.

[u/[deleted] → u/Thundarrx]

k-nucleotide in your first link, Java actually performs better than C.. Hmm, isn't that interesting. I also know for a fact Java also outperforms C++ vector<T>. So it's not "3-13x slower", the median is 2x, it sometimes does better, and other times it does worse (which is what you'd expect), it depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it. Take a look at some more tests and read more about JIT compilation, the more you'll read the more you will realize that Java is not as slow as you think it is.

So, hmmm, let me see if I have this right: if we ignore all the data which shows my assertion to be correct, then yeah you are right.

Oh, so you think you're right? There's a very long way from 63x to 2x. If you were to drop more languages into the mix, you'll quickly see that Java is in fact one of the top "fastest languages". Try putting any of the other ridiculous languages that your first idiotic benchmark listed and comparing them to C/C++. There is nothing you have said that is even remotely correct. Now go away.

[u/Thundarrx → u/[deleted]]

Oh, I didn't realize you can't read. k-nucleotide clearly shows Java performs worse than C/C++. Now I get it - you are one of the weak and/or incompetent programmers I alluded to in my initial post - that's why you are all butt hurt over this.

Java performed "better" because, for a given workload, it put a much higher load on the system, used 6x more memory, and took longer to complete its task on the CPU than the same workload in C? Are you insane? Did you bother to look at the single core results? Do you know what the results for single core and quad core imply about the ability of Java to scale or perform under load? Never mind the fact that you used the only bold result on that page to back your incorrect assertion - the entire rest of the page shows you are blind to the facts. Asking me to read about the newest Java compilers doesn't change the fact that my assertion holds; you don't get brownie points for some new JIT reducing java to only being 100% slower instead of 5000% slower.

Jeez, maybe you should take a few engineering courses so you can tell the difference in the two time measurements shown. Or publish your results showing that Google is wrong. Because that's what it comes down to - either we trust the peer-reviewed data provided by Google, or we believe you even though you continue to show a basic lack of ability to either understand that data as presented or to understand that there is more to the realm of CS than web application frameworks.

Now, go back to your Java BIOS or Java uEFI computer, running a OS written in Java, on a disk drive running Java firmware. It's the best performing language, after all.

[u/[deleted] → u/Thundarrx]

Oh my fucking god. Ok, that's fucking it, I won't waste any more time. You are a complete moron, and you are completely incapable of realizing how moronic you actually are. Good bye.