It's hard to compare but Tomcat is functionally equivalent to something like Passenger, Paster or Mongrel. And last time I looked, it actually ate 80MB. It doesn't make sense to compare empty application servers: it is your running application you should be concerned with.

JVM is fine if you're running only a single instance of it: just use threads instead of processes. The problem with JVM is that you often can't afford to have several of them running: in Java world everything is measured in hundreds of megabytes, that's the smallest unit of measurement they use (often supplemented with references to 32GB servers, "they're so cheap now"). Check out Batik Java library for rendering SVG. A single 45Kb SVG file, when fully parsed, eats up 150MB right here on my laptop. After serveral repeated test runs, JVM memory usage grew to a sweet 540MB, where it stopped because I capped it there via -Xmx. For comparison: Inkscape, which is an entire SVG IDE powerhouse, not just a parser, consumes only 3MB more when I open the same file in it, so that's like 50x less, plus it doesn't grow.

See, unlike CLR or Python/Perl/Ruby, JVM truly is a virtual computer, i.e. running a WAR file under Tomcat is kind of like running an Office 2008 inside of an invisible VMWare image with Windows pre-configured to occupy either 500MB or 1GB or comparable number. I just don't get why Java people are so damn proud of it. Moreover, they find nothing strange about this bizarre arrangement because they're completely absorbed by that JVM instance.

To demonstrate why Java doesn't belong on UNIX I invite you to implement find, grep, less and sort as Java programs, pipe them all together in a bash console and enjoy the show. :-)

In the end, there is nothing with Java that can't be dealt with by paying a few extra $ for hosting. The main issue is that JVM is an OS, a much more corporate, boring, uptight and over-engineered (and much less fun) than UNIX is.

I also want to address some of Tobias42 comments: for the most part I absolutely agree with him, except I don't follow his comparisons to Rails: we are comparing platforms here, not languages or frameworks. JVM is a memory hog compared to UNIX, and if he wants to compare Rails, I'd recommend loading his Rails app into JVM via JRuby/Tomcat and seeing what happens to his 192MB VPS box. Moreover, I wouldn't call 100ms/page (i.e. just 10 requests/second) "lightning fast", which makes his next comment about "Rails taking 10x longer" sound a bit strange: how hard does one need to try to build a web application with 1 request/second performance?