Twice the bits, twice the time
When I built a zfs-based RAID array last year, I switched to the 64-bit build of FreeBSD. Knowing that 64-bit software is inherently evil, I set up a 32-bit jail for coding. At some point, I was dragged into doing UI work requiring GWT's devmode. I took the easy way out - abandoning my jail. Comparing compile-time numbers to a new machine a colleague built yesterday, it occurred to me to try a 32-bit JDK.
My work revolves around our codebase and our customer's codebase. Both are architected in a very minimalistic fashion, using ant to build. There are a couple xjc tasks, some javac annotation preprocessing and some code generation, but the bulk of the build process is pure javac. I'll shutup now; you're here for the numbers. Here they are ('real' time from time:
64-bit OpenJDK 6 b20, FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE
Codebase 0:
18.36 real
17.59 real
17.57 real
18.60 real
17.97 real
------------
(avg: 18.02)
Codebase 1:
23.06 real
23.37 real
22.34 real
22.64 real
22.34 real
------------
(avg: 22.75)
32-bit OpenJDK 6 b20, FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE
Codebase 0:
12.99 real
13.64 real
12.77 real
12.38 real
12.42 real
------------
(avg: 12.84)
Codebase 1:
15.35 real
15.44 real
15.20 real
15.17 real
15.14 real
------------
(avg: 15.26)
Compiling with a 64-bit javac is 140% and 149% SLOWER than the 32-bit javac. Roughly 1.5x! How much time have I wasted compiling with a 64-bit javac during the last year? I don't want to approximate that math. If I worked in a real office, I'd have a reason for compiling with 64-bit javac. Needless to say, JAVA_HOME has already been changed.
If there's a more general point to be had here, it would be that those extra bits can indeed affect performance in a human-perceivable and negative fashion. Always be sure to evaluate your tools to
determine where you are wasting time.
A Strange Language
While scanning and shredding all manner of paper record I have accumulated over the years, I stumbled across a poem given to me by an English teacher in middle or high school. There is no author on the print I have, and I could not find the poem online anywhere. To preserve its humor for eternity, here it is:
A lawless language is English;
The plural of box is boxes,
But more than one ox is not oxes.
One fowl's a goose, more are two geese,
But more than one mouse is certainly not meece.
On the contrary for mouse, the plural is mice,
While the plural for house is never hice!
If more than one man is always men,
The plural of pan should then be pen?
One may be that, and two may be those,
But the plural of hat is surely not hose!
Masculine pronouns are he, his and him.
Imagine the feminines she, shis and shim!
The English language, I think you'll agree,
Is as strange a language as ever could be.
If anyone happens to know the proper author of this, please let me know. Otherwise, enjoy what I feel is an accurate and humorous critique of the English language.