why is java so unresponsive in windows

[rocks1985]

why is java so unresponsive in windows

[kjordan2001]

Why is this question so ambiguous? :whistle:

Is it slow for every program you run?

[threetonesun]

Is it slower than on other OSes? I've tried Java in Windows and Linux, and some seem faster in Windows, some seem faster in Linux, but in both Java programs are inherently slower than other programing languages.

[Rathamon]

Java is slow because it supports only the lowest common denominator of hardware and software features present on compatible platforms

[Kestrel]

Is it slower than on other OSes? I've tried Java in Windows and Linux, and some seem faster in Windows, some seem faster in Linux, but in both Java programs are inherently slower than other programing languages.

Untrue. You need to stay up to date.

OS News has a benchmark that shows exactly the opposite of your claims.

Java is not slow. Swing (the main choice of Java GUI) *IS* slow, but even that is mostly the fault of those using it.

[matt74441]

Its slow because you're running it in an emulator.

Just kidding, but that statement got me in trouble once.

[threetonesun]

Untrue. You need to stay up to date.

OS News has a benchmark that shows exactly the opposite of your claims.

Java is not slow. Swing (the main choice of Java GUI) *IS* slow, but even that is mostly the fault of those using it.

It doesn't show the exact opposite, it just shows Java isn't as bad as it used to be. It's still not the fastest language to use.

[John Veteran]

It doesn't show the exact opposite, it just shows Java isn't as bad as it used to be. It's still not the fastest language to use.

true, the fastest language is assembly, but how many of us want to write everything in assembly? ;)

java is slow because it runs through a VM. if the VM doesn't handle the code efficiently, then it will result in wasted resources and "slow" applications. try updating your VM (Y)

[bluebsh]

java may seem slow because its a 4GL language (4th generation language) the higher you get up in generations it seems the slower they get because of how far they are becomming seperated from machine code... Java has garbage collectors that can slow down performance and runs on a VM that also causes performance slow downs, VMs are kinda a link between java language and the machine code it needs to run it...

[John Veteran]

java may seem slow because its a 4GL language (4th generation language) the higher you get up in generations it seems the slower they get because of how far they are becomming seperated from machine code... Java has garbage collectors that can slow down performance and runs on a VM that also causes performance slow downs, VMs are kinda a link between java language and the machine code it needs to run it...

.net languages are 4 gl languages (as you told me c# was in some news article once ;)) and they don't slow down like java... i suppose this is because .net languages are not run in a VM, but are compiled at runtime.

for an example of this, see the quake II .net project. written in managed c++, it quake II .net runs at the same speed as the original game.

http://www.vertigosoftware.com/Quake2.htm

[Japlabot]

Java is slow because there is a lot of legacy code compiled in that's only needed for java running on other platforms

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

Untrue. You need to stay up to date.

OS News has a benchmark that shows exactly the opposite of your claims.

Java is not slow. Swing (the main choice of Java GUI) *IS* slow, but even that is mostly the fault of those using it.

I'll repeat what I said here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...dpost&p=1690558

Higher numbers are worse: http://img.osnews.com/img/5602/results.jpg

That graph is the number of seconds it took to complete the test. Java is the slowest :s

Did you even read the article?

[deadearth]

ummm.... Yes, overall java is the slowest among the ones mentioned in that graph. But did you pay attention to the individual tests? The slowest thing about the java was the trig. What would the numbers look like if we removed the trig?

Java would come in second, by a hair.

Here are the numbers with trig removed. I hope i didn't make a math mistake.

Visual c++.net 45.3

visual c#.net 61.2

c gcc 3.3.1 58.1

visual basic .net 81.9

visual j#.net 86.1

java 1.3.1 75.4

java 1.4.2 46.1

I'm not saying java is the best. But you can't look at just the overall number and say it's the slowest.

[kjordan2001]

I'll repeat what I said here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...dpost&p=1690558

Higher numbers are worse: http://img.osnews.com/img/5602/results.jpg

That graph is the number of seconds it took to complete the test. Java is the slowest :s

Did you even read the article?

Seems faster in most things except trig really.

[bluebsh]

.net languages are 4 gl languages (as you told me c# was in some news article once ;)) and they don't slow down like java... i suppose this is because .net languages are not run in a VM, but are compiled at runtime.

for an example of this, see the quake II .net project. written in managed c++, it quake II .net runs at the same speed as the original game.

http://www.vertigosoftware.com/Quake2.htm

yep, the VM and how they are compiled have a lot to do with it... .NET for example uses a runtime and compiles, java on the other hand uses a VM which converts code into a version it can run... kinda like the old Visual Basic PCODE compiler... vb use to be really slow for a lot of things... now that .NET came it is handled diffrently

it also has a lot to do with how the compiler that makes the executable does in terms of makeing a compiled file, some are not as optimized as they could be

Edited February 9, 2004 by bluebsh

[matt74441]

ummm.... Yes, overall java is the slowest among the ones mentioned in that graph. But did you pay attention to the individual tests? The slowest thing about the java was the trig. What would the numbers look like if we removed the trig?

Unfortunately, without the trig, a programming language would be pretty useless ;)

[deadearth]

Unfortunately, without the trig, a programming language would be pretty useless ;)

hehe, i know :D , i was just pointing out that the test was showing that java really isn't that bad. In fact it suprised me. I would have thought it would have been much slower on most, if not all of the tests.

[Kestrel]

I'll repeat what I said here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...dpost&p=1690558

Higher numbers are worse: http://img.osnews.com/img/5602/results.jpg

That graph is the number of seconds it took to complete the test. Java is the slowest :s

Did you even read the article?

Did YOU read the article? Java was second only to Visual C++. The ONLY area that it showed a significant performance problem was in trig functions. There has been some subsequent investigation into the huge performance difference in trig functions and the results are (1) Excessive synchronisation, (2) Poor implementation of some core methods. The problem has been reported to the Java Bug Parade and a fix will be forthcoming.

Stop and use the grey thing between your ears next time.

[Kestrel]

It doesn't show the exact opposite, it just shows Java isn't as bad as it used to be. It's still not the fastest language to use.

Wrong! The benchmark DOES show the exact opposite of the claim that Java is slow... in fact, only Visual C++ is faster and by an insignificant amount.

[bluebsh]

Did YOU read the article? Java was second only to Visual C++. The ONLY area that it showed a significant performance problem was in trig functions. There has been some subsequent investigation into the huge performance difference in trig functions and the results are (1) Excessive synchronisation, (2) Poor implementation of some core methods. The problem has been reported to the Java Bug Parade and a fix will be forthcoming.

Stop and use the grey thing between your ears next time.

my personal fav is how Managed C++.NET is 1st over the GCC compiler... hehe

[threetonesun]

Wrong! The benchmark DOES show the exact opposite of the claim that Java is slow... in fact, only Visual C++ is faster and by an insignificant amount.

The "exact" opposite would have been Java being the fastest, which it's not.

[Sn1p3t]

I dont like Java, simply because it's slower than other languages I've used, and I program in it with NetBeans. :o

Anyone know of a better free IDE for Java?

[deadearth]

Wrong! The benchmark DOES show the exact opposite of the claim that Java is slow... in fact, only Visual C++ is faster and by an insignificant amount.?

The "exact" opposite would have been Java being the fastest, which it's not.

So the exact opposite of being slow, is being the fastest?

His exact words are saying that the "claim" is that java is slow, not that it is the slowest. The opposite of slowest, would be fastest, but the opposite of slow, is fast.

Oh Sn1p3t, try eclipse, i use it and it's great.

edit: here's the URL for eclipse

http://www.eclipse.org