Benchmark of 6 XML parsers on Solaris

[Mark D. Anderson]

>> Judging from the level of discussion on various other lists I'm
>> on, none of java, perl, or python were designed with lightweight,
>> accurate, and meaningful profiling of their own run time built in.
>
>Not so.  With Java 2, check out "java -Xrunhprof:help" output to
>see the built in profiler.  Works nicely on SPARC out of the box,
>but the Win32 version at one point needed a JIT update to get CPU
>profiling to work (by default it only does memory profiling).

All the languages I mentioned have profiling hooks for "end programmers"
using the language, of varying usability and accuracy.

That is different from the kind of profiling
that language implementors need, which ideally would allow for
easy delving into the behavior of the runtime (typically C functions)
in addition to the language-level profiling. This would be complemented
by things like VM instruction histogramming, and introspection into
other counters (the moral equivalent of oracle's V$ tables).

In the case of a proprietary language like java, this lack of public
implementor tools is understandable, as such tools represent a competitive
advantage for VM implementors. For example, the implementors of the microsoft VM
and the implementors of the sun VM have each created completely different
private interfaces for performance instrumentation of their own VMs.

-mda



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)