不要轻信别人的话，看看在代码的任何性能关键部分，C语言和你选择的语言的反汇编。我认为你可以在Visual Studio运行时的反汇编窗口中看到已分解的. net。如果Java使用windbg有点棘手，应该是可能的，尽管如果你用。net来做，许多问题将是相同的。

如果没有必要的话，我不喜欢用C来编写，但我认为，这些回答中吹捧除C之外其他语言的速度的许多主张可以放在一边，只需用C和您选择的高级语言分解相同的例程，特别是如果涉及大量数据(这在性能关键型应用程序中很常见)。Fortran在其专业领域可能是个例外，不知道。它比C高吗?

第一次比较JITed代码和本地代码时，我解决了。net代码是否能与C代码运行得相当的所有问题。额外的抽象层次和所有的安全检查都带来了巨大的成本。同样的成本可能也适用于Java，但不要相信我的话，在性能至关重要的地方尝试一下。(有没有人足够了解JITed Java来在内存中找到一个编译过的过程?这当然是可能的)

使用现代优化编译器，纯C程序不太可能比编译后的。net代码快得多，如果有的话。通过像。net这样的框架为开发人员提供的生产力提高，您可以在一天内完成过去用普通c语言需要几周或几个月才能完成的工作。再加上与开发人员的工资相比，硬件成本低廉，用高级语言编写这些东西并以任何缓慢的速度抛出硬件要便宜得多。

The reason Jeff and Joel talk about C being the "real programmer" language is because there is no hand-holding in C. You must allocate your own memory, deallocate that memory, do your own bounds-checking, etc. There's no such thing as new object(); There's no garbage collection, classes, OOP, entity frameworks, LINQ, properties, attributes, fields, or anything like that. You have to know things like pointer arithmetic and how to dereference a pointer. And, for that matter, know and understand what a pointer is. You have to know what a stack frame is and what the instruction pointer is. You have to know the memory model of the CPU architecture you're working on. There is a lot of implicit understanding of the architecture of a microcomputer (usually the microcomputer you're working on) when programming in C that simply is not present nor necessary when programming in something like C# or Java. All of that information has been off-loaded to the compiler (or VM) programmer.

原因有很多，包括:

它被编译成汇编语言。 它是静态类型的。 没有垃圾回收。 没有异常机制。 编译器优化 C语言的哲学之一是保持简单并保持向后兼容性，而不是添加更多的特性。

For the most part, every C instruction corresponds to a very few assembler instructions. You are essentially writing higher level machine code, so you have control over almost everything the processor does. Many other compiled languages, such as C++, have a lot of simple looking instructions that can turn into much more code than you think it does (virtual functions, copy constructors, etc..) And interpreted languages like Java or Ruby have another layer of instructions that you never see - the Virtual Machine or Interpreter.

在过去，只有两种类型的语言:编译型和解释型。

编译语言利用“编译器”读取语言语法并将其转换为相同的汇编语言代码，这可以直接在CPU上进行。解释型语言使用了几种不同的方案，但从本质上讲，语言语法被转换成一种中间形式，然后在“解释器”(用于执行代码的环境)中运行。

因此，在某种意义上，在代码和机器之间存在另一个“层”——解释器。而且，在计算机中，越多就意味着使用更多的资源。翻译速度较慢，因为他们必须执行更多的操作。

More recently, we've seen more hybrid languages like Java, that employ both a compiler and an interpreter to make them work. It's complicated, but a JVM is faster, more sophisticated and way more optimized than the old interpreters, so it stands a much better change of performing (over time) closer to just straight compiled code. Of course, the newer compilers also have more fancy optimizing tricks so they tend to generate way better code than they used to as well. But most optimizations, most often (although not always) make some type of trade-off such that they are not always faster in all circumstances. Like everything else, nothing comes for free, so the optimizers must get their boast from somewhere (although often times it using compile-time CPU to save runtime CPU).

Getting back to C, it is a simple language, that can be compiled into fairly optimized assembly and then run directly on the target machine. In C, if you increment an integer, it's more than likely that it is only one assembler step in the CPU, in Java however, it could end up being a lot more than that (and could include a bit of garbage collection as well :-) C offers you an abstraction that is way closer to the machine (assembler is the closest), but you end up having to do way more work to get it going and it is not as protected, easy to use or error friendly. Most other languages give you a higher abstraction and take care of more of the underlying details for you, but in exchange for their advanced functionality they require more resources to run. As you generalize some solutions, you have to handle a broader range of computing, which often requires more resources.

保罗。

只需在您的IDE中逐步检查机器代码，您就会看到为什么它更快(如果它更快的话)。它省去了很多手把手的环节。很有可能你的Cxx也会被告知不要使用，在这种情况下，它应该是相同的。

编译器优化被高估了，就像几乎所有关于语言速度的看法一样。

优化生成的代码只会对热点代码产生影响，也就是说，没有函数调用(显式或隐式)的紧凑算法。在其他地方，收效甚微。