That only shows they had lousy memory management facilities... and 
ignores the fact that the Java programmers had teams of people at Sun or 
elsewhere helping them by working on the memory management instead...

Michael Kay wrote:
>>> If you really need raw speed C or C++ will be always faster 
>>>       
>> than Java.
>>
>> No, it won't. It has been proved false by counterexample that 
>> C/C++ will
>> *always* be faster than Java.  On some problems, Java already 
>> is faster than C or C++. 
>>     
>
> And even if it were true in theory, it wouldn't be true in practice. The
> XSLT experience was that it took three or four times as long to produce a
> working processor in C as in Java, and while the C developers were debugging
> their memory management, the Java developers were devising* new
> optimizations.
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
> (devizing? doesn't look right. American spelling confuses me.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>