[rescue] spam WPOISON

Joshua D. Boyd jdboyd at celestrion.celestrion.net
Tue Sep 9 12:04:58 CDT 2003

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:55:39PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> >>>The vast majority of OO is C/C++.  OO will run fine
> >>>without a JVM.  I agree that OO is incredibly slow
> >>>(1.1beta is better) but that's not due to Java.
> >>
> >>I seriously hope you're joking.  There is No Reason that native 
> >>machine
> >>code should -ever- run that slowly.
> >
> >Look, imagine your $doomedProject.  There is no reason that the tools
> >they are using to build the Java code couldn't be generating C++ code.
> >And if they were generating C++ code, what do you think the chances are
> >that it wouldn't grind to a halt almost as quickly, based on what 
> >you've
> >said about it?
>   Tools they are using to build...what?  You want their Java compilers 
> to generate C++ code??

No, no, no.  There are GUI tools out there where you "program" in them,
and it generates Java code that you never see.  The "developer" never
sees a single line of code.  Reportedly, use of such tools can
frequently lead to programs that don't perform basic optimizations
(like, say, caching the results of a SQL select that takes a minute to
run for later use) and leak memory like a sieve, and potentially lead to
web pages that take minutes to load because the Java application server
is so bogged down with code from the Java GUI frontend.

Now, imagine a system like this where instead of generated Java, it is
generated C++.  When the code generated is this bad, it makes no real
difference to the speed whether the program is written in C++ or Java,
or really, even C. 

More information about the rescue mailing list