Java performance (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Java performance" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
5,060th place
4,600th place
low place
7,566th place
low place
low place
3,857th place
2,958th place
1,131st place
850th place
1,514th place
1,024th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
6,158th place
4,128th place
low place
low place
7,590th place
4,698th place
272nd place
225th place
9,107th place
6,668th place
14th place
14th place
2,431st place
1,607th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
9,195th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,185th place
840th place
low place
low place
1,216th place
797th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
7,385th place
9th place
13th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,669th place
1,290th place
low place
low place
4,903rd place
3,679th place
low place
low place
3,598th place
3,448th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place

acm.org

portal.acm.org

archive.today

artima.com

azulsystems.com

best-of-robotics.org

  • L. Gherardi; D. Brugali; D. Comotti (2012). "A Java vs. C++ performance evaluation: a 3D modeling benchmark" (PDF). University of Bergamo. Retrieved March 23, 2014. Using the Server compiler, which is best tuned for long-running applications, have instead demonstrated that Java is from 1.09 to 1.91 times slower(...)In conclusion, the results obtained with the server compiler and these important features suggest that Java can be considered a valid alternative to C++

bytonic.de

  • For example, the duration of pauses is less noticeable now. See for example this clone of Quake II written in Java: Jake2.
  • : 260/250 frame/s versus 245 frame/s (see benchmark)

cherrystonesoftware.com

cnet.com

cnet.com

news.cnet.com

codechef.com

codeproject.com

cosylab.com

cosylib.cosylab.com

  • Igor, Križnar (10 May 2005). "SWT Vs. Swing Performance Comparison" (PDF). cosylab.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 24 May 2008. It is hard to give a rule-of-thumb where SWT would outperform Swing, or vice versa. In some environments (e.g., Windows), SWT is a winner. In others (Linux, VMware hosting Windows), Swing and its redraw optimization outperform SWT significantly. Differences in performance are significant: factors of 2 and more are common, in either direction

ddj.com

debian.org

benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org

googleblog.blogspot.com

headius.blogspot.com

  • Nutter, Charles (January 28, 2008). "Lang.NET 2008: Day 1 Thoughts". Retrieved January 18, 2011. Deoptimization is very exciting when dealing with performance concerns, since it means you can make much more aggressive optimizations...knowing you'll be able to fall back on a tried and true safe path later on

headius.com

blog.headius.com

  • Nutter, Charles (May 3, 2008). "The Power of the JVM". Retrieved June 11, 2011. What happens if you've already inlined A's method when B comes along? Here again the JVM shines. Because the JVM is essentially a dynamic language runtime under the covers, it remains ever-vigilant, watching for exactly these sorts of events to happen. And here's the really cool part: when situations change, the JVM can deoptimize. This is a crucial detail. Many other runtimes can only do their optimization once. C compilers must do it all ahead of time, during the build. Some allow you to profile your application and feed that into subsequent builds, but once you've released a piece of code it's essentially as optimized as it will ever get. Other VM-like systems like the CLR do have a JIT phase, but it happens early in execution (maybe before the system even starts executing) and doesn't ever happen again. The JVM's ability to deoptimize and return to interpretation gives it room to be optimistic...room to make ambitious guesses and gracefully fall back to a safe state, to try again later.

ibm.com

www-128.ibm.com

ibm.com

infoq.com

informit.com

inria.fr

hal.inria.fr

  • Brian Amedro; Vladimir Bodnartchouk; Denis Caromel; Christian Delbe; Fabrice Huet; Guillermo L. Taboada (August 2008). "Current State of Java for HPC". INRIA. Retrieved September 9, 2008. We first perform some micro benchmarks for various JVMs, showing the overall good performance for basic arithmetic operations(...). Comparing this implementation with a Fortran/MPI one, we show that they have similar performance on computation intensive benchmarks, but still have scalability issues when performing intensive communications.

itu.dk

java.net

weblogs.java.net

jdk.dev.java.net

forums.java.net

jna.dev.java.net

javamex.com

jcp.org

jfree.org

  • See here for a benchmark showing a performance boost of about 60% from Java 5.0 to 6 for the application JFreeChart

linxdigital.ca

martiansoftware.com

oracle.com

blogs.oracle.com

docs.oracle.com

osnews.com

pku.edu.cn

acm.pku.edu.cn

poj.org

scala-lang.org

days2011.scala-lang.org

scribblethink.org

  • "Java versus C++ benchmarks".
  • Lewis, J.P.; Neumann, Ulrich. "Performance of Java versus C++". Computer Graphics and Immersive Technology Lab, University of Southern California.

shudo.net

sortbenchmark.org

sourceforge.net

janet-project.sourceforge.net

sun.com

java.sun.com

bugs.sun.com

developers.sun.com

symantec.com

theregister.co.uk

timus.ru

acm.timus.ru

tju.edu.cn

acm.tju.edu.cn

tommti-systems.de

topcoder.com

vt.edu

ei.cs.vt.edu

web.archive.org

xidian.edu.cn

acm.xidian.edu.cn

yahoo.net

developer.yahoo.net

youtube.com