Re: Help me!! Why java is so popular

raddog58c wrote:
On Feb 7, 11:14 am, "Chris Uppal" <chris.up...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS.org> wrote:
raddog58c wrote:
How can it negative? I'm not saying you're wrong, but how can any
byte-coded language outperform a binary language if they are doing the
same thing? It can't, because you have to convert the byte code to
the native binary stream before you can execute it.
At least in theory, the JVM's JITer has more information available to it than a
compiler producing a statically pre-compiled binary would have. Some
theoretical examples:
These are good... thanks. It would depend on the nature of the
application, as some of the optimizations, unless significant,
wouldn't make up the difference in the time it took to compile the
byte code into machine code.

Yes - unless significant.

This does presume that we're comparing the post-compiled byte code
against the precompiled code in the runtime binary (.EXE, .COM, etc).
The fact the conversion is done at run time and would have to be done
every time the code is run (unless it's cached) puts it at a
disadvantage out of the gate. The late binding to environment could
help close the gap,

Or it could cover the gap 200%.

You are basically proving that Java is not efficient by assuming so.

Meaning you proved nothing.

Arne
.