Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.java
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!delmarva.com!internetMCI!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Parenthesized syntax challenge
Message-ID: <DGp8zz.6Jq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <44aa9a$j5h@miso.cs.uq.edu.au> <453po8$175@Yost.com>  <LUDEMANN.95Oct6140930@expernet26.expernet.com>  <DGApp8.J41@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <DGDGEB.6no@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:15:47 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5487 comp.lang.lisp:19601 comp.lang.java:2108

clgonsal@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Carl Laurence Gonsalves) writes:

>In article <DGApp8.J41@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Carl Laurence Gonsalves <clgonsal@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>>The incredible slowness of Java is only evidence of the inefficiency of
>>garbage collection. [...]

>>I'm also not saying that garbage collection is the only reason Java is
>>slow. [...]

Which implies that it is _a_ reason, just not the only one.

>Several people seem to have misunderstood my point, so I thought I'd better
>clarify. I am *not* saying that garbage collection is slow. What I am
>saying is that Java is slow. I think most people agree on this. Java also
>has garbage collection. (any disagreements?)

>Now, when I said "evidence" perhaps I was using the wrong word. By evidence
>I mean that (statistically speaking) the fact that Java is both slow and
>has GC puts a point in the "GC is slow" bucket. 

But it doesn't.  If anything, it puts a point in the "system that uses
GC is slow" bucket.  It also puts one in the "system whose name starts
with `J'" bucket.

Now, why do you think the first bucket is worth mentioning while the
second is obviously silly?  Presumably you think GC might well be a
reason Java is slow.  Moreover, that you describe the bucket as the
"GC is slow" bucket suggests that your view is actually a stronger
one.

I'm not trying to show that you think that "garbage collection is
slow", just to say something about why people might have thought
that was your view.

>The post I was originally replying to was saying that one could convince C
>and C++ programmers that GC could be efficient by pointing at Java. That's
>a silly statement since Java programs are very slow, and if anything the
>slowness of Java will make many C and C++ programmers feel that GC must be
>the cause of Java's slowness.

That's a good point.

-- jd
