Re: Java ready for number crunching?
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article <o8-dnSgBI_HhLLbVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> wrote:
Monty Hall wrote:
While I can understand why Sun implemented templates as they did, to me
the problem w/ Java templates is that
Java does not have templates.
primitives. I don't like boxing and unboxing primitives as there is a
space and speed penality (or is there? some optimization?)
Study the matter, then make the claim. There is generally little to no
"penalty" for boxing and unboxing.
I mostly use templates
but not in Java.
Are you nuts? Unboxing is not too bad because conditions are right for
it to be optimized at a low level. Boxing uses Integer.valueOf(int i),
and that's only fast for values -128 to 127. The rest are very slow.
Whether I'm nuts is beside the point. The fact is that in a program that is
interacting with a hard disk, like a DBMS-based one, the [auto]boxing is
extremely unlikely to be the choke point. The OP has told us how many
transactions they contemplate performing, but not how quickly, nor what
percentage of total runtime the boxing occupies.
It is likely the OP's application is I/O-bound, and that "optimizing" the
boxing matter will make no difference to the speed of the program.
--
Lew