Scala Native v0.1 • Hacker News Board

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#251

Post by bluejekyll » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #221

bluejekyll wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never successfully deployed a Java application with defaults on the GC, etc. I'd love it if I could compile those options into a binary.

Yeah you can't do that, and I don't necessarily agree with that design decision. But for the sake of the comparison it's worth saying that these "simple" compile-to-binary languages simply don't let you set those parameters at all - it's ridiculous to argue that Go (say) is better than Java because something that's impossible in Go requires fiddling with parameters in Java.

I didn't actually say Go is better than Java. I said that binaries were something I realized I missed because of those languages. That is, it's something I appreciate about Go and Rust.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#252

Post by lmm » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 3:01 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #251

lmm wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you can't do that, and I don't necessarily agree with that design decision. But for the sake of the comparison it's worth saying that these "simple" compile-to-binary languages simply don't let you set those parameters at all - it's ridiculous to argue that Go (say) is better than Java because something that's impossible in Go requires fiddling with parameters in Java.

I didn't actually say Go is better than Java. I said that binaries were something I realized I missed because of those languages. That is, it's something I appreciate about Go and Rust.

But what's the advantage of a binary over a (shaded) jar? "java -jar myapp.jar" is a little more typing than "myapp", but only a little (and you can avoid that by prepending a launch script if you want); having the JVM installed on all your servers is a one-time cost.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#253

Post by bluejekyll » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 3:30 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #252

bluejekyll wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't actually say Go is better than Java. I said that binaries were something I realized I missed because of those languages. That is, it's something I appreciate about Go and Rust.

But what's the advantage of a binary over a (shaded) jar? "java -jar myapp.jar" is a little more typing than "myapp", but only a little (and you can avoid that by prepending a launch script if you want); having the JVM installed on all your servers is a one-time cost.

See my above comment about GC and other runtime options. I always need a script to specify all the options to the JVM. It is never just as easy as a single jar with no options. That makes it better, no doubt, but it still sucks.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#254

Post by lmm » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 3:41 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #253

lmm wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's the advantage of a binary over a (shaded) jar? "java -jar myapp.jar" is a little more typing than "myapp", but only a little (and you can avoid that by prepending a launch script if you want); having the JVM installed on all your servers is a one-time cost.

See my above comment about GC and other runtime options. I always need a script to specify all the options to the JVM. It is never just as easy as a single jar with no options. That makes it better , no doubt, but it still sucks.

I don't understand how you need those other options in Java and avoid needing them with a binary? What's the difference that means you can get by with not passing any options in go or what have you?

(I've used "java -jar myapp.jar" in production and it's been fine; the Java mainstream may favour using lots of -Dblah but it's entirely possible to replace that with code)