(With tips from above answers, I did more test, with an additional C and V version)

On my Linux machine, with times = 100000000.

Testing result:

• When exponent = 2.4

Copy Java: result: 1.053906e+24, during: 7432 ms
    C: result: 1.053906e+24, during: 5544 ms
   Go: result: 1.053906e+24, during: 8.716807708s
    V: result: 1.053906e+24, during: 2.342s

• When exponent = 2, still use pow() or Pow().

Copy Java: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 630 ms
    C: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 852 ms
   Go: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 3.336549272s
    V: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 128.160ms

• When exponent = 2, but use x * x instead.

Copy Java: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 636 ms
    C: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 340 ms
   Go: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 115.491272ms
    V: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 122.283ms

Summary:

• In general, Go is really fast, according to the last test, faster than Java, or even C.
• But, Java really has a good pow() implementation, according to the first two tests.
• V, a new language similar to Go in some way, is very fast.

Code

Test.java:

Copy/**
 * Compile:
 *  javac Test.java
 * Run:
 *  java Test
 */ 
public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Test test = new Test();
    long startAt = System.currentTimeMillis();
        double re = test.testFun(10, 16666611, 100000000);
    long during = System.currentTimeMillis() - startAt;
        System.out.printf("%10s: result: %e, during: %d ms\n", "Java", re, during);
    }

    private double testFun(double first, double second, long times) {
        int i = 0;
        double result = 0;
        double dx = (second - first) / times;
        for (; i < times; i++) {
            result += fun(first + i * dx);
        }
        return result * dx;
    }

    private double fun(double v) {
        return v * v - v;
        // return Math.pow(v, 2) - v;
        // return Math.pow(v, 2.4) - v;
    }
}

test.c:

Copy/**
 * compile with:
 *  gcc test.c -lm
 */
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/time.h>

double fun(double v) {
    return v * v - v;
    // return pow(v, 2) - v;
    // return pow(v, 2.4) - v;
}

double testFun(double first, double second, long times) {
    int i;
    double result = 0;
    double dx = (second - first) / times;
    for (i = 0; i < times; i++) {
        result += fun(first + i * dx);
    }
    return result * dx;
}

long long current_timestamp() {
    struct timeval te;
    gettimeofday(&te, NULL); // get current time
    long long milliseconds =
        te.tv_sec * 1000LL + te.tv_usec / 1000; // calculate milliseconds
    // printf("milliseconds: %lld\n", milliseconds);
    return milliseconds;
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
    long long startAt = current_timestamp();
    double re = testFun(10, 16666611, 100000000);
    long long during = current_timestamp() - startAt;
    printf("%10s: result: %e, during: %lld ms\n", "C", re, during);
    return 0;
}

test.go:

Copy/**
 * How to run:
 *  go run test.go
 */
package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "math"
    "time"
)

func main() {
    startAt := time.Now()
    result := testFun(10, 16666611, 100000000)
    during := time.Since(startAt)
    fmt.Printf("%10s: result: %e, during: %v\n", "Go", result, during)

    _ = math.Pow
}

func fun(x float64) float64 {
    return x*x - x
    // return math.Pow(x, 2) - x
    // return math.Pow(x, 2.4) - x
}

func testFun(first float64, second float64, times int) float64 {
    var i = 0
    var result float64 = 0
    var dx float64
    dx = (second - first) / float64(times)
    for ; i < times; i++ {
        result += fun(first + float64(i)*dx)
    }
    return result * dx
}

speed_v.v:

Copyimport time
import math

// compile & run with:  v -prod crun speed_v.v
fn main() {
    lang := 'V'
    start_at := time.now()
    result := run_fun(10, 16666611, 100000000)
    during := time.since(start_at)
    println('${lang}: result: ${result:.7}, during: ${during}')
}

fn fun(x f64) f64 {
    // return x * x - x
    return math.pow(x, 2) - x
    // return math.pow(x, 2.4) - x
}

fn run_fun(first f64, second f64, times int) f64 {
    mut i := 0
    mut result := 0.0
    dx := (second - first) / times
    for ; i < times; i++ {
        result += fun(first + i * dx)
    }
    return result * dx
}

Compile:

Copyjavac Test.java; gcc test.c -lm; go build test.go; v -prod speed_v.v

Run:

Copyjava Test; ./a.out ; ./test; ./speed_v

@Update - C program with -O2 or -O3 option

As suggested by Raffaello in the comment, when compiling C program, could use -O2 or -O3 to further optimize the program.

And, following are the test result for the C program:

• When exponent = 2.4.

Copy            C: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 5805 ms
 C with `-O2`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 5324 ms
 C with `-O3`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 5326 ms

• When exponent = 2, still use pow() or Pow().

Copy            C: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 897 ms
 C with `-O2`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 119 ms
 C with `-O3`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 121 ms

• When exponent = 2, but use x * x instead.

Copy            C: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 353 ms
 C with `-O2`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 122 ms
 C with `-O3`: result: 1.543194e+21, during: 119 ms

Summary - (-O2 and -O3 option):

• With -O2 and -O3 option
  • When base is integer (e.g 2), would make c program quicker, by several times.
  • When base is floating point number (e.g 2.4), it's also quicker, but very minimal.
• Comparing between -O2 and -O3, they are quite close in above tests.