>>1
Here is something I don't know: is bytecode and the JVM the reason Java is so slow, or is it the near-unavoidable bloat of Java code? In other words, are Clojure programs frustratingly slow, or do they not have that problem?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-23 13:01
>>2
Clojure and Sexcala both use JVM and the Jaba bloated libraries.
>>3
Yeah, that's why I'm curious about it. Do they share the shit slowness of the typical J2EELS program?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-23 13:05
>>2
I would say it's because of the JVM since it introduces another layer of abstraction from the machine . How can having too many libraries hurt (if that's what you meant by bloat)?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-23 13:12
>>5
No, not the presence of classes per se, but rather the fact that the officially sanctioned way of doing practically anything in Java is to create a new class with its own instantiation overhead.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-23 13:27
>>6
I think most languages which run in the JVM will have comparable performances because of the efficiency of modern compilers. Compiling similar code will probably give you similar bytecode.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-23 13:31
X11 is fast too, as fast as anything else.
JVM is too.
There is good explanations for anything that might make you think otherwise, like everything you've experienced using them. Forget that, you did something wrong or misunderstood what's slow. You're slow, in your head. You're stupid actually, why do I even talk with you. Fuck you!