zlacker

Well, I personally would be happier with a stronger type system (e.g. java can compile just as fast, and it has a less anemic type system), but sure.

And sure, it is welcome from a dev POV on one hand, though from an ecosystem perspective, more languages are not necessarily good as it multiplies the effort required.

>>gf000+(OP)
It is kind of ironic that from Go's point of view, Java's type system is PhD level of language knowledge.

Especially given how the language was criticised back in 1996.

>>gf000+(OP)
What do you mean by saying Java compiles just as fast? Do you mean to say that the Java->bytecode conversion is fast? Duh, it barely does anything. Go compilation generates machine code, you can't compare it to bytecode generation.

Are Java AOT compilation times just as fast as Go?

>>Mawr+P71
> Duh, it barely does anything. Go compilation generates machine code, you can't compare it to bytecode generation

Why not? Machine code is not all that special - C++ and Rust is slow due to optimizations, not for machine code as target itself. Go "barely does anything", just spits out machine code almost as is.

Java AOT via GraalVM's native image is quite slow, but it has a different way of working (doing all the Java class loading and initialization and "baking" that into the native image).