Re: new to programming in Linux
From: Pasi Parviainen (parviainen.pasi_at_kolumbus.fi)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:46:37 +0300
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 2004-06-18, Pasi Parviainen <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Roger Leigh wrote:
>>>On 2004-06-16, Tim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>Java seems attractive, probably because I´ve heard of it. Is it possible to
>>>>write good, fast programs in Java?
>>>"Fast" and Java don't generally go together. I've only dabbled a
>>>little, but even the simplest interfaces (dialog with a close button)
>>People should really look the numbers and forget old mantra "Java is slow."
> If my own experience shows it to perform like a dog, why should other
> peoples measurements make it better? That won't make it work for me,
> will it?
Of course not!
> The test program was three dialogs: two which were simple entries to
> enter numbers, and one to display a result (the two numbers multiplied
> together). So each dialog was either a label or entry, plus an OK
> button. Each dialog took 2-3 second to display. That's unacceptable:
> if this was GTK+, it would be nearly instantaneous.
> If it's that bad for a trivial dialog, I can't bear to think about how
> bad a real application will be. (Those I have seen did not perform
>>Take pointers (for example) from here:
> Benchmarks are useless. Sure, under some workloads, it's OK. But the
> performance of Swing was laughable.
Didn't look what that article said?
> Some of those benchmarks show Java can be OK. But that wasn't my point.
> My point was that Swing was so slow as to be barely usable. I tested
> on both Windows and Linux.
>>>The SunONE IDE was completely unusable on my PIII 900MHz
>>Memory, eh? The most significant thing for Java slowness is short of
> 256 MiB core and 512 MiB swap should be enough for one program! This
> was on a Windows machine, BTW. That is more than average, and if it
> can't run in that much, that's not acceptable.
Yeah. Memory costs and such...
Well, I'm running IntelliJ IDEA (100% pure Java) with my 1.2GHz machine
with 512MB memory, well above accepted bar. I'm happy.
At the same time when I compare my KDE applications, I don't see
difference on performance. Maybe my KDE and X is so slow...?... ;-)
Oh, and the same time my windows box has 1GB memory and 2.8GHz
processor, and it is usable. But that is different story.
-- Pasi Parviainen, Chairperson Open Source Finland - OSF ry www.opensourcefinland.org/en