Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

Vincent,

John Tromp  wrote a  game benchmark  that made a  believer out  of me.
Java appears to be only 30% slower or even better.  There are probably
applications where it's  much slower, but it doesn't  seem to be board
games.

I still won't use Java because it IS slower and in my opinion is still
a low level language (I don't mind the slowdown if I get a much higher
level language.)   GC is  cool, but I  always either  completely avoid
malloc or use it in very controlled ways.   

GNU has a great native code compiler.  

- Don





   Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:02:08 +0100
   From: Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
   Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42

   Wait a minute, you guys want to use the 3 times slower JAVA platform for
   game programming?

   You are not serious are you?

   JAVA is great for connectivity and a quick programming of internet tools
   and for server tools and interfaces.

   But for the pure speed, i must refer this inferior compiler technology to
   the outdated desk.

   A complex program will be a factor 3 slower with it at least.

   In fact small 30 line programs already are to my amazement not seldom up to
   a factor 3 slower.



   At 19:49 8-11-2004 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
   >
   >
   >> -----Original Message-----
   >> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Stuart A Yeates
   >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 18:58
   >> To: computer-go
   >> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher
   >>
   >>
   >> Mark Boon wrote:
   >>
   >> > I would be really interested if it would give a significant speedup.
   >>  > In Java it's probably even more practical than in C, as it has the
   >> > built-in capability of doing run-time compilation of the code and
   >>  > load the compiled class run-time to replace the existing one.
   >>
   >> This is not true in the general case.
   >>
   >> While it is true that the Java standard libraries have a method for
   >> calling the compiler, an implementation is not required to have a
   >> compiler to be called. This is the key difference between Sun's JRE
   >> (Java Runtime Envirnoment) which doesn't have a compiler and Sun's JDK
   >> (Java Development Kit) which does.
   >
   >That could be. I did something like this some years ago, although it was for
   >a more mundane application for a bank. You don't necessarily need the JDK,
   >just the 'tools' library.
   >
   >>
   >> Indeed, with the recent release of GNU's GCJ (Gnu Compiler for Java),
   >> it's going to be increasingly frequent for the Java code to actually be
   >> running as a pre-compiled binary executable.
   >>
   >> cheers
   >> stuart
   >> _______________________________________________
   >> computer-go mailing list
   >> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
   >>
   >
   >_______________________________________________
   >computer-go mailing list
   >computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
   >
   >
   _______________________________________________
   computer-go mailing list
   computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/