Forums > Java

jitter ogl java vs javascript

October 23, 2006 | 5:20 pm

Forgive me if this already came up a zillion times, but I can’t find the
answers in the archive.

I’ve been doing most of my jitter in js, and for several reasons I’d love to
start using Java instead, but some things are not clear to me.

- if using jitter objects in java, are you crossing the java bridge on every
object function call?
- if so…. will the processing improvement of numerous for-loops and
if-statements in java (over js) easily outperform the hit of crossing this
bridge?
- can anyone recommend/discourage doing heavy open-gl processing through
Java instantiated Jitter objects?

cheers, -thijs


October 23, 2006 | 5:29 pm

Hi Thijs,

Yes, you are crossing the "java bridge" every time you call a jitter
method from Java. However I would still expect Java to outperform js
in most cases. I have done lots of openGL processing in Java without
issue.

Ben

On 10/23/06, Thijs Koerselman

wrote:
> Forgive me if this already came up a zillion times, but I can’t find the
> answers in the archive.
>
> I’ve been doing most of my jitter in js, and for several reasons I’d love to
> start using Java instead, but some things are not clear to me.
>
> – if using jitter objects in java, are you crossing the java bridge on every
> object function call?
> – if so…. will the processing improvement of numerous for-loops and
> if-statements in java (over js) easily outperform the hit of crossing this
> bridge?
> – can anyone recommend/discourage doing heavy open-gl processing through
> Java instantiated Jitter objects?
>
> cheers, -thijs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


October 23, 2006 | 7:32 pm

Hi Ben, thanks for clearing this up. I’ll give it try then.

best, -thijs

On 10/23/06, Ben Nevile wrote:
>
> Hi Thijs,
>
> Yes, you are crossing the "java bridge" every time you call a jitter
> method from Java. However I would still expect Java to outperform js
> in most cases. I have done lots of openGL processing in Java without
> issue.
>
> Ben
>
>


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)