The fastest running code would be carefully hand crafted machine code. Assembler will be almost as good. Both are very low level and it takes a lot of writing code to do things. C is a little above assembler. You still have the ability to control things at a very low level in the actual machine, but there is enough abstraction make writing it faster and easier then assembler. Other languages such as C# and JAVA are even more abstract. While Assembler and machine code are called low level languages, C# and JAVA (and many others) are called high level languages. C is sometimes called a middle level language.

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)

c++的平均速度更快(就像它最初一样，主要是C的超集，尽管有一些不同)。然而，对于特定的基准测试，通常有另一种更快的语言。

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/

fannjuch-redux是Scala中最快的

n-body和fasta在Ada中更快。

频谱范数在Fortran中是最快的。

反补、mandelbrot和pidigits在ATS中最快。

regex-dna是JavaScript中最快的。

chameneau -redux最快的是Java 7。

Haskell的螺纹环速度最快。

其余的基准测试在C或c++中是最快的。

这实际上是一个长期存在的谎言。虽然C程序确实经常更快，但情况并非总是如此，特别是当C程序员不太擅长它的时候。

人们往往会忘记的一个明显的漏洞是，当程序必须为某种IO阻塞时，比如任何GUI程序中的用户输入。在这些情况下，使用什么语言并不重要，因为您受到数据传入速度的限制，而不是处理数据的速度。在这种情况下，不管你使用的是C、Java、c#甚至Perl;你不能比数据进入的速度更快。

The other major thing is that using garbage collection and not using proper pointers allows the virtual machine to make a number of optimizations not available in other languages. For instance, the JVM is capable of moving objects around on the heap to defragment it. This makes future allocations much faster since the next index can simply be used rather than looking it up in a table. Modern JVMs also don't have to actually deallocate memory; instead, they just move the live objects around when they GC and the spent memory from the dead objects is recovered essentially for free.

This also brings up an interesting point about C and even more so in C++. There is something of a design philosophy of "If you don't need it, you don't pay for it." The problem is that if you do want it, you end up paying through the nose for it. For instance, the vtable implementation in Java tends to be a lot better than C++ implementations, so virtual function calls are a lot faster. On the other hand, you have no choice but to use virtual functions in Java and they still cost something, but in programs that use a lot of virtual functions, the reduced cost adds up.

c语言并没有什么特别之处，这也是它速度快的原因之一。

新语言支持垃圾收集、动态类型和其他功能，使程序员更容易编写程序。

问题在于，会有额外的处理开销，这会降低应用程序的性能。C语言没有这些，这意味着没有开销，但这意味着程序员需要能够分配内存并释放它们以防止内存泄漏，并且必须处理变量的静态类型。

也就是说，许多语言和平台，如Java(其Java虚拟机)和。net(其公共语言运行时)，多年来通过即时编译(从字节码生成本机机器代码以实现更高性能)等技术改进了性能。

我认为没有人提到这样一个事实，即在C编译器上投入的精力比任何其他编译器都要多，也许Java是例外。

由于前面提到的许多原因，C是非常可优化的——几乎比任何其他语言都要多。因此，如果在其他语言编译器上投入同样的精力，C可能仍然会名列前茅。

I think there is at least one candidate language that with effort could be optimized better than C and thus we could see implementations that produce faster binaries. I'm thinking of digital mars D because the creator took care to build a language that could potentially be better optimized than C. There may be other languages that have this possibility. However I cannot imagine that any language will have compilers more than just a few percent faster than the best C compilers. I would love to be wrong.

我认为真正的“唾手可得的果实”将是那些被设计为易于人类优化的语言。一个熟练的程序员可以让任何语言运行得更快——但有时你不得不做一些荒谬的事情或使用不自然的结构来实现这一点。尽管这总是需要付出努力，但一种好的语言应该产生相对快速的代码，而不必纠结于程序究竟是如何编写的。

It's also important (at least to me) that the worst case code tends to be fast. There are numerous "proofs" on the web that Java is as fast or faster than C, but that is based on cherry picking examples. I'm not big fan of C, but I know that ANYTHING I write in C is going to run well. With Java it will "probably" run within 15% of the speed, usually within 25% but in some cases it can be far worse. Any cases where it's just as fast or within a couple of percent are usually due to most of the time being spent in the library code which is heavily optimized C anyway.