Procedural code will always be more efficient with CPU and RAM, arrays will always be faster than Lists, being able to control datatype sizing to the byte will always outperform classes, and so on.
java is very fast, please do not misunderstand me. java is much better than it used to be, as well.
Java is not a language chosen when performance is a concern. Java is chosen when you have a giant pile of developers of various levels of skill and you want to pile a ton of rules and linters on them all so they write software in the same way.
This is obviously false. The JVM, or any other compiler for that matter, is what translates the OOP code into CPU instructions. If it does that optimally, it won't matter what design pattern the top-level compiled language used. If it does it poorly, then it will.
> CPUs and RAM are not tailored to OOP in any way.
This is not entirely true. Intel in particular pays a lot of attention to Java performance when benchmarking processor designs, see for example https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t... .
> Procedural code will always be more efficient with CPU and RAM...
First of all, arrays vs Lists and data type sizing are orthogonal to procedural vs OO code. You can write OO code that uses arrays and procedural code that uses lists, and datatype sizing is more related to your choice of language and compiler toolchain than your design patterns.
I think what you're trying to say here is that the performance ceiling for a low level language using simple language primitives (if-else and vanilla function calls instead of classes and polymorphism) that compiles to a binary is higher than that for a high level language that compiles to an intermediate language (or an interpreted language). This is generally true for small code paths - if you need to do a bunch of matrix operations, or data crunching for a small well defined problem, you can generally do it faster in C/C++ than in Java if you put in enough effort. The ceiling part matters though - in general, you have to put in a lot of skill and development effort to realize these differences, and this often grows super-linearly with the size of your codebase for low level languages. If you have a large application that has a lot of code, your overall performance will usually be higher with a high level language because the average performance for any particular part will be much better. Sure, given infinite time and resources you could theoretically do better in C, but nobody has that.
This is reflected in the approach most professionals take in practice when it comes to perf optimization - write most of your code in a high level language like Java or Python because on average it will be faster and less buggy for any reasonable amount of developer effort. For pieces of code that absolutely have to run as fast as possible, write them in C and call out to them from the high level language.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is lots of people choose java precisely because performance is a concern. It does better than most other high level languages out there, and your average performance for a large codebase will be much better than something like C/C++ given the same amount of effort. As others have noted, it does multithreading better than most too, which is another major performance consideration. I don't care if my Java code is half the speed of the C equivalent if I can easily run 40 cores at once - or 40000. I think languages like Rust and Swift may let us have the best of both worlds in the future, but that remains to be seen. For now, the only time lower level procedural languages win is when you need a relatively small codebase to run absolutely as fast as possible.
ah, the "sufficiently smart compiler" argument. There is no such compiler, FYI, and there may not ever be. Not for every situation that developers are creating in Java today.
it's a matter of hitting your CPU cache as often as possible. Neither javac nor the runtime has any freaking clue how to do that, but you, as a developer, do. When you write Java, you can't do a lot to control how that JVM arranges data or how it fetches it from RAM, partially because of OOP, partially because of autoboxing/unboxing, so you wind up missing the cache a lot more unless you create a bunch of primitive types and use those, and that that point, why are you writing Java?
I'm not saying Java is bad. I'm saying that it is not the fastest language you can use. You seem to be arguing that it is, or that it could be. It cannot.
> average performance for a large codebase will be much better than something like C/C++ given the same amount of effort.
absolutely not. Maybe if you're fully skilled in Java and new to C or C++, but if you are equally skilled in both, you would never choose Java for performance alone.
Nonetheless, I found that it is easy to find these hot spots and they are trivial to “fix” in java for optimal performance, by simply using a primitive array. At every other place, Java is more than fast enough even with the occasional “jumping around”.
Also, haven’t seen a study on that but would be interested in Java’s defragmentation skills (due to moving GC). Malloc implementations can fragments a lot, and cold path code jumps around a lot. Wouldn’t be surprised if Java would fair quite well here.
