Along the years robotics software and applications have been typically implemented in compiled languages, such as C and C++, rather than interpreted languages, like Java. This choice has been due to their well-known faster behaviors, which meet the high performance requirements of robotics. Nevertheless, several projects that implement robotics functionality in Java can be found in literature and different experiments conduced by computer scientists have proved that the difference between Java and C++ is not so evident. In this paper we report our work on quantifying the difference of performance between Java and C++ and we offer a set of data in order to better understand whether the performance of Java allows to consider it a valid alternative for robotics applications or not. We report about the execution time of a Java implementation of an algorithm originally written in C++ and we compare this data with the performance of the original version. Results show that, using the appropriate optimizations, Java is from 1.09 to 1.51 times slower than C++ under Windows and from 1.21 to 1.91 times under Linux.

(2012). A Java vs. C++ performance evaluation: a 3D modeling benchmark [conference presentation - intervento a convegno]. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10446/27936

A Java vs. C++ performance evaluation: a 3D modeling benchmark

GHERARDI, Luca;BRUGALI, Davide;COMOTTI, Daniele
2012-01-01

Abstract

Along the years robotics software and applications have been typically implemented in compiled languages, such as C and C++, rather than interpreted languages, like Java. This choice has been due to their well-known faster behaviors, which meet the high performance requirements of robotics. Nevertheless, several projects that implement robotics functionality in Java can be found in literature and different experiments conduced by computer scientists have proved that the difference between Java and C++ is not so evident. In this paper we report our work on quantifying the difference of performance between Java and C++ and we offer a set of data in order to better understand whether the performance of Java allows to consider it a valid alternative for robotics applications or not. We report about the execution time of a Java implementation of an algorithm originally written in C++ and we compare this data with the performance of the original version. Results show that, using the appropriate optimizations, Java is from 1.09 to 1.51 times slower than C++ under Windows and from 1.21 to 1.91 times under Linux.
davide.brugali@unibg.it
2012
Inglese
Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots: Third International Conference. SIMPAR 2012, Tsukuba, Japan, November 2012.Proceedings.
Itsuki Noda, Noriako Ando, Davide Brugali, James J. Kuffner
9783642343261
7628
161
172
cartaceo
online
Germany
Berlin
Springer
esperti anonimi
SIMPAR 2012 - 3rd International Conference on Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots
3rd
Tsukuba, Japan
November 5-8, 2012
internazionale
contributo
Settore ING-INF/05 - Sistemi di Elaborazione delle Informazioni
Programming Languages; Robotics
   ERC Advanced Grant: BRICS - Best Practice in Robotics
   FP7
info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
3
Gherardi, Luca; Brugali, Davide; Comotti, Daniele
1.4 Contributi in atti di convegno - Contributions in conference proceedings::1.4.01 Contributi in atti di convegno - Conference presentations
open
Non definito
273
(2012). A Java vs. C++ performance evaluation: a 3D modeling benchmark [conference presentation - intervento a convegno]. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10446/27936
File allegato/i alla scheda:
File Dimensione del file Formato  
gherardi12java.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: author's postprint - versione referata
Dimensione del file 240.45 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
240.45 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Aisberg ©2008 Servizi bibliotecari, Università degli studi di Bergamo | Terms of use/Condizioni di utilizzo

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10446/27936
Citazioni
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact