OpenOffice.org Performance

[cbbrowne-HInyCGIudOg at public.gmane.org]

> Small nitpick: OO is written in Java afaik, and most of the time is spent
> by the Java hulk stepping out of its package(s). If OO would be written in
> C++ and statically linked (shudder) it should come up at about disk speed,
> assuming the right optimizations are used, just like Excel on M$.

WRONG.

OpenOffice.org depends on:
 a) libc6 (meaning some of it is in C)
 b) libstdc++ (meaning some of it is in C++)

There are NO inherent dependancies on Java, except in certain
extensions.

OpenOffice.org IS written in C++.

If the issues with its performance have to do with the language that it
is implemented in, then it is C++ that is to blame, not Java.

Reimplementing things in C++ is _NOT_ a universal panacea; the fact that
it imposes considerable complexity of managing memory allocation and
deallocation on programmers makes it quite easy for a move to C++ to
worsen problems rather than to make them better.

My installations of OpenOffice.org contain none of the Java components,
and are certainly not affected by inefficiencies of that nature.

OO _is_ quite slow, and the only language that can be pointed at for
blame for that is C++.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','ntlug.org').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml