|Subject||RE: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared libraries vs. J ava|
>A strong argument against Java is that Java strings are Unicode, soArgument only as strong as UDF's make heavy use of strings.
>all strings passed between Java and the engine require translation,
>or that Java strings require allocation of two objects or that Java
>lacks string oriented byte codes. All true and must be considered.
Is there at least rough statistics (or simply a feeling) on that?
I suppose, they are mainly used for specific computations.
>I disagree. Interbase will be a better product if and when "native"I guess, just as portable as IB engine is,
>languages are deprecated:
> 4. It will be more portable
since JVM would be embedded within the engine, won't it?
>Java is not for everything. It is impossible to implement aWell said. Is a very good fit.
>database with reasonable performance in Java. It is miserably
>slow for fancy string stuff. It's GUI is reprehensible. But
>as an embedded subsystem (for which it was originally designed)
>it is superb.