Ah, I see. I red it that GCC plans to add support for Go, not to just enable it.
If GCJ had actually supported the whole thing, it would've been useful: if for nothing else, to get proper binaries for open-source Java applications.
The huge first-start lag of Java remains to this day.
GCJ has an outdated profile (I'm almost sure it doesn't support 1.6, and certainly not Java 1.7, and the world goes soon into Java 1.8 with InvokeDynamic used in the language) , an outdated runtime (which has a very bad GC) so is really not a good option for the applications you say that are so good (by not using OpenJDK). I tried to compile more than two classes projects and I couldn't do it with GCJ. I didn't submit a bug because Java was a side task for me. But I am sure that even for Java developers was no interest. Even Google which has developers in GCC team and also has people interested in Java (as of Android) but GCJ is not interesting for anyone.
May you count this "huge", some real figures would be really nice? When I start Java applications they don't start slower than Visual Studio (which is written mostly in C++) or KDE applications in my Gnome environment.The huge first-start lag of Java remains to this day.
They don't, that was my point. None of them even compile using GCJ.Can you point the one that is OSS and runs better than OpenJDK?
There are many FOSS Java apps that I would use if I could have native binaries. Jitsi comes to mind first.
Sure. It takes five seconds on the machine I'm typing on to start Tilitin from a cold start. It's a light-weight accounting program.May you count this "huge", some real figures would be really nice? When I start Java applications they don't start slower than Visual Studio (which is written mostly in C++) or KDE applications in my Gnome environment.
A larger delay is visible using FOP (7-8s), which is a XML-FO typesetter program. Those two are the only Java programs I have. Both behave better from warm caches, but that's irrelevant, as the complaint is about cold starts.
VS is a terrible comparison, since the thing takes a minute to start, far longer than any Java app
If KDE apps take as long to cold start as Java, KDE is doing something wrong.
I can say one application which runs much slower with Java than with it (LibreOffice with Java plugins), but I noticed many snappy Java applications. Also, as we both understand the Java tradeoffs, waiting/ignoring the first 5 seconds (the startup ones), Java runs really nice. Many Java applications are responsive and fast.