Arch Linux

wuischke

Member

From: Suisse Romande

Registered: 2007-01-06

Posts: 630

Re: Higher level than C++, faster than Java, is there such a thing?

Just a quick follow-up:

You might appreciate Write yourself a scheme in 48 hours, it should give you a quick start on implementing a language on top of Haskell while introducing you to Haskell. (Note: I haven't followed the tutorial yet.)

I've just finished the tutorial and I can only continue to recommend it. The Haskell code got bigger and less well-arranged (my fault) than I expected (~580 lines), therefore I recommend you to write the exercises in a copy of a code. But I recommend to do the exercises, at least I learn a lot more by doing than by just reading and understanding.

Should you already know Lisp/functional programming: The last chapter helps thinking the Haskell way by defining functions in terms of folds instead of recursive calls.

It was really fun, I'll do a follow-up with another simple language. Should you go with Haskell, have a look at this tutorial.

Mr.Elendig

#archlinux@freenode channel op

From: The intertubes

Registered: 2004-11-07

Posts: 4,092

Re: Higher level than C++, faster than Java, is there such a thing?

As a sidenote: Using C# on *nix might become problematic in the future

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2009-12-19 23:47:51)

---

Evil #archlinux@libera.chat channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest

beroal

Member

From: Ukraine

Registered: 2009-06-07

Posts: 325

Website

Re: Higher level than C++, faster than Java, is there such a thing?

I'm wondering if there is a language that is higher-level and easier to program in than C++, but faster to start than Java?

I can not understand precisely what do you mean by "starting time". Start of a virtual machine? Initialization of an application library? A JIT-compiler may waste time on a compilation. It depends on what aforementioned components we use and whether we use them at all. As a general rule, the higher-level language is, the slower programs are. Are you interested in starting time or overall efficiency, maybe heap behavior?

---

we are not condemned to write ugly code

Xilon

Member

Registered: 2007-01-01

Posts: 243

Re: Higher level than C++, faster than Java, is there such a thing?

ocaml?

I've heard Caml is as fast/faster than C, and is definitely higher level than C. I'm not sure about OCaml, but I would guess it's similar in performance. Leading on from that, Haskell is an obvious choice.

I think any functional language would get a tick for the "higher level" part, not so sure about speed. It depends what the application does. There are also other things to consider like memory usage and development speed. Functional languages tend to excel in the latter two. Out of functional languages, interesting ones are Haskell, Lisp/Scheme, Erlang and Clean.

C++ and even C are quite high-level if you make them be. It depends what features you want. C even has anonymous functions (blocks) through extensions. I suppose you want the language to be concise? In that case functional languages are definitely the way to go. Python, Ruby and Lua can also be very concise, although the former two aren't quite that fast.

What about Lua? It compiles, but I am ensure to its speed in relation to C++ and Java.

Lua compiles to bytecode, not machine code. It's still interpreted, like like Java, Python, Ruby, etc.

Last edited by Xilon (2009-12-28 14:07:48)

nawitus

Member

Registered: 2009-05-11

Posts: 112

Re: Higher level than C++, faster than Java, is there such a thing?

I'm quite certain that BlitzMax fits the bill. It's compiled and faster than Java, and easier to program than C++. The bad side is that it's not free.