graal

Pros of graalvm-ce-builds

• Provides pre-built binaries for easier installation and use
• Focuses on the Community Edition, which is free and open-source
• Offers more frequent releases and updates

Cons of graalvm-ce-builds

• Limited to Community Edition features, lacking some enterprise capabilities
• May have less comprehensive documentation compared to the main Graal repository
• Potentially slower to incorporate cutting-edge features and experiments

Code Comparison

graal:

@Snippet
static int sumArray(int[] array) {
    int sum = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        sum += array[i];
    }
    return sum;
}

graalvm-ce-builds:

public static int sumArray(int[] array) {
    return Arrays.stream(array).sum();
}

The graal repository often contains more low-level and experimental code, while graalvm-ce-builds focuses on stable, production-ready implementations. The code examples demonstrate this difference, with graal showing a more traditional loop-based approach and graalvm-ce-builds utilizing Java 8+ stream operations for concise and potentially more optimized code.

Pros of JDK

• Broader community support and contributions
• More extensive documentation and resources
• Wider compatibility with existing Java applications

Cons of JDK

• Slower release cycle for new features
• Less optimized for specific use cases (e.g., microservices)

Code Comparison

JDK (HotSpot VM):

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello, World!");
    }
}

Graal (GraalVM):

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello, World!");
    }
}

The code for a basic "Hello, World!" program is identical for both JDK and Graal. However, the underlying execution and optimization mechanisms differ:

• JDK uses the HotSpot VM, which performs just-in-time (JIT) compilation.
• Graal uses GraalVM, which can perform ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation and offers polyglot capabilities.

While the source code may look the same, Graal can potentially offer better performance for certain applications, especially those involving microservices or requiring native executables. JDK, on the other hand, provides a more standardized and widely supported environment for general Java development.

Pros of OpenJ9

• Lower memory footprint and faster startup times
• Better performance in cloud and containerized environments
• More extensive garbage collection options and tuning capabilities

Cons of OpenJ9

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to GraalVM
• Less focus on ahead-of-time compilation and native image generation
• Limited support for non-Java languages

Code Comparison

OpenJ9:

// Example of OpenJ9-specific JIT compiler directive
@com.ibm.jit.JITCompilerDirective(
    hotness = JITCompilerDirective.Hotness.SCORCHING,
    name = "optimizeMethod"
)
public void performCriticalOperation() {
    // Method implementation
}

GraalVM:

// Example of GraalVM-specific Truffle language implementation
@ExportLibrary(InteropLibrary.class)
public class CustomLanguageObject implements TruffleObject {
    @ExportMessage
    boolean isExecutable() {
        return true;
    }
}

Both projects aim to improve Java performance, but they take different approaches. OpenJ9 focuses on optimizing runtime performance and memory usage, making it well-suited for cloud deployments. GraalVM, on the other hand, emphasizes polyglot capabilities and ahead-of-time compilation, offering more flexibility for diverse language ecosystems and native image generation.

Pros of Temurin-build

• Open-source and community-driven, ensuring transparency and collaborative development
• Supports multiple platforms and architectures, offering wider compatibility
• Provides a fully-featured JDK build system with extensive documentation

Cons of Temurin-build

• May have a steeper learning curve for newcomers compared to Graal
• Potentially slower release cycles due to community-driven development process
• Limited focus on advanced JVM technologies like ahead-of-time compilation

Code Comparison

Temurin-build (build script excerpt):

#!/bin/bash
set -eu
SCRIPT_DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"
source "$SCRIPT_DIR/common/common.sh"

Graal (Java code snippet):

@Snippet
public static int add(int a, int b) {
    return a + b;
}

While Temurin-build focuses on build scripts and infrastructure, Graal emphasizes Java code optimization and compilation. Temurin-build's scripts are primarily shell-based, whereas Graal's core functionality is implemented in Java.

Temurin-build is ideal for those seeking a community-driven, open-source JDK build system with broad platform support. Graal, on the other hand, excels in advanced JVM technologies and performance optimizations, making it suitable for projects requiring cutting-edge Java performance.

Pros of Dragonwell8

• Specifically optimized for large-scale, high-performance Java applications
• Includes additional features like enhanced monitoring and diagnostics tools
• Focuses on stability and reliability for enterprise-level deployments

Cons of Dragonwell8

• Limited to Java 8, while Graal supports multiple Java versions
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Graal
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower adoption of new Java features

Code Comparison

Dragonwell8 (JIT compilation example):

public static int sum(int a, int b) {
    return a + b;
}

Graal (Polyglot example):

Context context = Context.create();
Value result = context.eval("js", "40 + 2");
System.out.println(result.asInt()); // Outputs: 42

While both projects aim to improve Java performance, they take different approaches. Dragonwell8 focuses on optimizing Java 8 for large-scale applications, while Graal offers a more versatile polyglot runtime with support for multiple languages and Java versions. The code examples highlight Dragonwell8's traditional JIT compilation approach versus Graal's polyglot capabilities.