«

Jon Harrop wrote:
> Mark Thornton wrote:
>> Rather amusing really as unintentional use of unbuffered IO is a
>> frequent cause of Java benchmarks running more slowly than they should.
>> It seems that .NET copied that characteristic as well.
>
> Yes. I've no idea why they do that. Isn't buffered IO a better default?!

It is easier to put a buffered wrapper around an unbuffered stream
than the the other way around.

Arne

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, F#/Mono is 3x slower than F#/.NET on the SciMark2 benchmark. I'd like
>> to know how performance compares between these platforms for parallel code.
>
> If Razii is genuinely comparing Java with Mono (I haven't looked at
> any of the figures) it's a silly test to start with (unless you're
> specifically interested in Mono, of course). The vast majority of C#
> code runs on .NET rather than Mono - and while I applaud the Mono
> team's work, I seriously doubt that it has quite has much effort going
> into it as Microsoft is putting into .NET. I'd expect .NET to
> outperform Mono, and on microbencharks like these the difference could
> be quite significant in some cases.

I have frequently seen a x2 factor between MS .NET 2.0 and Mono 1.2 !

Comparing with Mono is too easy.

Arne

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
> Now, you're using *those results* to form conclusions, right? If not,
> there was little point in posting them. However, those results are of
> Mono, not .NET.
>
> This is why I've urged consistency. What's the point in debating Java
> vs .NET if you keep posting links to results of Java vs Mono?

You are correct.

I would just prefer to consider .NET an overall group and call the
implementations MS .NET and Mono.

(probably MS's trademark lawyers would not like that, but ...)

Arne

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
> Even running .NET rather than Mono will only go so far - you'd need to
> run it on both 64 bit and 32 bit platforms, as the runtimes do
> different things. (IIRC the 64 bit CLR uses tail recursion more heavily
> than the 32 bit CLR, for instance.)
>
> If I were to find a really slow JVM, would that prove that Java is a
> slower *language* than C#?

It is even more complex than that.

MS .NET 1.1, MS .NET 2.0, Mono 1.1, Mono 1.2

Win32/x86, Win64/x86, Win64/IA64, Linux/x86, MacOS X, Solaris/SPARC

that is 14 combinations.

If the benchmark involves file IO, then it would be relevant to
test different file systems on Linux as well.

For Java it is much worse.

1.4.2, 1.5.0, 1.6.0
SUN, IBM, BEA, Oracle
client VM, server VM
3-4 platforms per vendor
and a ton of VM tuning options

I would need to use BigInteger to calculate the number of combinations.

And believe me - there are huge differences in performance
characteristics between SUN, IBM and BEA !

I would say that trying to compare the speed of Java with the speed
of .NET reveals a big lack of knowledge about both Java and .NET !

Arne

Razii wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:11:45 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
> <> wrote:
>> Now, you're using *those results* to form conclusions, right? If not,
>> there was little point in posting them. However, those results are of
>> Mono, not .NET.
>
> Is this guy Jon Skeet really this stupid?

Unlike you he is a valuable contributor to both the Java and
..NET groups.

Arne

Jon Harrop wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>> Yes. I've no idea why they do that. Isn't buffered IO a better default?!
>> It is easier to put a buffered wrapper around an unbuffered stream
>> than the the other way around.
>
> Did these languages not have optional arguments when their standard
> libraries were designed?

Neither Java or C# has optional arguments today. But operator
overload can be used instead.

It is just not good OO to do it that way.

Arne