[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why gcj? WAS: Re: Benchmarks (who has the fastest free VM)
From: |
Dalibor Topic |
Subject: |
Re: Why gcj? WAS: Re: Benchmarks (who has the fastest free VM) |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:22:05 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Christopher Granade <address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Koch wrote:
> | I currently search some performance comparisons for a german company
> | which thinks about switching to gcj.
> |
> |
> | Michael
>
> I'm new to the list, so excuse me if this is naive, but I don't quite
> understand the idea of gcj. It seems on the surface that precompiling
> defeats the purpose of Java itself: portability. If someone could please
> elaborate, I would much appriciate it.
bytecode is portable, but native objects are fast. So ideally, you'd use
bytecode for distribution, and use native compilation for local deployment.
cheers,
dalibor topic
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Benchmarks (who has the fastest free VM), Mark Wielaard, 2003/07/08
Re: Benchmarks (who has the fastest free VM), Dalibor Topic, 2003/07/08
Re: Benchmarks (who has the fastest free VM), David P Grove, 2003/07/08