Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Java?
Todd AvErth writes "Judge Motz recently ordered Microsoft to distribute Sun's JVM with every Windows product. Salon decided to pipe up about it with an editorial musing about whether or not it's too late. Most of it isn't all that interesting, but some of the comments from Ximian developer, Miguel de Icaza point to the advantage of being able to compile from multiple languages. Anyone know of any projects to compile JVM bytecode from other languages?" Update: 01/23 16:00 GMT by M : Comments were disallowed when this story was originally posted; fixed now. My mistake (although KDE3's stupid mouseover-activates-form-elements user interface, now finally fixed in the latest versions, has to take some blame too).
can be found here.
It doesn't mention SmartEiffel, though, which does generate byte codes. There are probably many others as well.
Ada has a bytecode generator. See here
So does that mean that my forced ada classes in college were useful?
I like the article, and I think it is easy to see that Java is going to continue to be a force.
:) Sure Swing is a little sluggish, but when everyone is running a p4 2GHz, it really doesn't matter....
On the server side it has always been a great solution (great for building complex applications, no performance degradation with 'backend' code, and very stable and safe).
On the client side, the MS/Sun ruling will be a huge boon to the applications side - of course developers will start building client side apps! "If the JVM is there, they will come"
smd4985
Apple's Cocoa framework, based on Objective-C, has all been exposed to Java.
Both languages share so much of the same concepts that both languages can call in each other, allowing a project to be composed of both Obj-C and java.
Given Apple's recent extensions to Obj-C, the so-called Objective-C++, you can actually mix C, C++ and Obj-C source code in the same file and interchangeably make cals to and from C++ classes and obj-C classes. Then, calling Java is nearly as trivial.
These changes are finding their way back into the GCC compiler, which is the standard compiler for the Project builder environment.
I think it is important to make this distinction. Don't fall victim to Salon's BS. Granted they have a talented team, and they are good writers. But so help me I am sick an tired of their political twist on everything, and their constantly playing devils advocate on every topic. The more leftist they get.. the more they alienate many of their readers.
.NET :)
Heh.. ok now that my rant is over...
What if Sun goes under? This could be a good thing. What if the java platform became GPL ? I think this is an important distinction to make.
Perhaps the only thing holding back the Java platform is sun holding onto it.
I have nothing to say about
--noodles
Anyone know of any projects to compile JVM bytecode from other languages?
...
Jython
# Dynamic compilation to Java bytecodes - leads to highest possible performance without sacrificing interactivity.
# Ability to extend existing Java classes in Jython - allows effective use of abstract classes.
# Optional static compilation - allows creation of applets, servlets, beans,
# Bean Properties - make use of Java packages much easier.
# Python Language - combines remarkable power with very clear syntax. It also supports a full object-oriented programming model which makes it a natural fit for Java's OO design.
I Think Sun are really a huge problem
I Think Garbage Collections are too much on my mind
I Think dumps have got a lot to do with why the world sucks
But what can you do?
Like a red rain, beating down on me
Like a Linus line, which won't let go of my brain
Like C#'s ass, it is in my head
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
I Think slows are gonna drive us all crazy
And write once, run anywheres make me feel like a child
I Think crapyness will eventually be the downfall of civilization
But what can you do? I said what can you do?
Like a red rain, beating down on me
Like a Linus line, which won't let go of my brain
Like C#'s ass, it is in my head
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
Like a red rain, beating down on me
Like C#'s smile, cruel and cold
Like Linus's ass, it is in my head
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
Blame it on java
when you think about it, MS is really trying to kill java... and in more ways than just the JVM stuff. If you ever visit the MSDN, you might see many items for converting your java code to C#, reasons to use C#.
Take away the business side, what are the advantages of using java versus C#? Looking at Mono it seems to marry both technologies -- correct me if I'm wrong, but they want to compile both.
--------
Free your mind.
It's never been too late for Java, any more than its too late for other less popular but powerful languages. Just because Perl is around doesn't make TK, or AppleScript, or Python any less useful, for instance.
I've found that Java is great for complex applications that need cross-platform ability when programmers can't spend too much time in making that compatibility happen. Mac OS X is among the strongest Java clients around, and it shows every time I download a raw JAR and just use it. YMMV, but Java has a lot of warmth left in its cup, and, if other platforms aside from MS continue to support, we'll all get free refills.
(Sorry for the many metaphors. Haven't had my cup of coffee this morning--ack, I did it again...)
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
My first two programming classes were in Java. I really think we would have had more fun learning the same concepts in Python. The thing that I've come to love the most about Python is that it doesn't force you to build an entire class just to test a feature. It's a great language to encourage CS students do their own experimenting with.
.NET has over Java. I know there are other languages that __can__ targe the JVM, but Sun doesn't exactly seem to be pushing that. I'll never understand why though. Java could be made into their platform's equivalent of C# and they could develop their own clone of VB for Java. Hmmmm VB-J? It'd be great if they'd build VB and ObjectPascal compilers that target the JVM.
I'm personally ambivalent to Java. I like it for some things, but the only real reason I want to learn it is because so many use it. I just recently discovered wxPython and think it's probably easier for me than Swing or AWT.
The best thing that could come from Java for development as a whole IMO is Javadoc. If that tool were extended to support C++, C#, VB.NET, Python, PERL, etc it would make everyone's lives easier. Seriously, has anyone seen better documentation than Sun's Javadocs from something so big and complex as Java's libraries?
I'm really excited about Mono because I really like VB.NET and C#. I think the ability to use any language you want with the same libraries is a very important strength that
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I think Java's future can only get better, not because of the recent ruling against Microsoft - which to be honest I don't think is all that important. Rather, the fact that all the universities (at least over here in the UK) seem to be adopting Java as their main language for Computer Science and related courses. It won't be long before a whole generation of enthusiastic Java coders emerges.
Another issue is that as linux becomes more widely used, code that can easily be run on multiple os's becomes far more valuable. And developers may turn to Java for this reason, especially with all the cheap, fast, hardware we're all running nowadays where speed and efficiency arn't as important as they used to be in many situations.
Well, not quite two (1 1/2 maybe :)
NetRexx "compiles" down to java bytecode, but it does it by compiling into java first. NetRexx allows you to use any Java class.
NetRexx was developed by the IBMer who developed the Rexx programming language. It has a fairly easy syntax, provides some very powerful/easy to use string parsing facilities.
You can pick up a copy of NetRexx (available for download from http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx/)
The other language is Jcon which does compile directly to the javabyte code. Jcon is a "Java" implementation of the Icon Programming Language.
To quote the website: Icon is a high-level, general-purpose programming language with a large repertoire of features for processing data structures and character strings. Icon is an imperative, procedural language with a syntax reminiscent of C and Pascal, but with semantics at a much higher level.
If you poke around deep enough in the history of Perl, you will find references back to Icon.
Details of Jcon (and download) can be found at the Icon home page at http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon then follow the link to Java-based "Jcon".
I agree completely with your comments on the future of Java as a server side solution. JSP, servlets, and J2EE are all fantastic.
Sure Swing is a little sluggish, but when everyone is running a p4 2GHz, it really doesn't matter....
But it does matter, if other programming languages still run relatively faster than Java. I agree that it's not as clunky as it was a few years ago though... *shudder*
Two things I feel you've left out are:
1 - The embedded systems market. When I was at Uni this was being touted as the next best thing. I don't have any real statistics for you, but I'm sure Java is doing well in this field.
2 - The mobile phone market. Pretty similar to my first point, the KVM (Kilobyte VM - a cut-down version of JVM) and related APIs in J2ME are a big player in the mobile phone business. The company I work for is developing mobile phone games, and Java has got the support of the handset manufacturers, which will give it superiority over other technologies that havn't had as good an uptake.
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
I think people make a bigger deal of MS shipping Java than they should. Java on the client has been in pretty sad shape for a long time, yet Java's popularity has grown. It's used a lot for server-side applications, and apparently in embedded applications as well (although I'm not as familiar with that side of things). Whether or not MS ships a decent JVM on Windows doesn't change this -- Java will continue to be used just as it is today.
Does it make a difference for Java on the client? Maybe. Although most of my Java work has been on the server side of things, I have written a couple of Java client apps as well. But those were for use inside the intranet, so it wasn't a big deal to require users to install a JVM. It certainly won't solve all of Java's client-side problems. Performance is much less of a problem than it was in the early JVMs, but most Java clients are still slower than their native counterparts. Perhaps more importantly, there are quite a few bugs in the GUI libraries (both Swing and AWT) that make it difficult to write highly polished applications. And with Swing you get problems with the look-and-feel not matching the native platform, which is a problem for some. But I think that part of the reason why these are still problems is because Java on the client hasn't really taken off -- maybe more of these issues will get solved if people start looking at Java as a valid client platform (because MS is shipping it with Windows) and start writing more client apps.
But regardless of whether it makes a difference, I think the ruling does make sense. MS had a contract to provide a compatible JVM, and they didn't hold up their end of the contract. (At least that's my understanding -- I don't know the complete details of the contract.) Therefore they should have to make ammends -- maybe it is too late to "save Java" on the client, but it shouldn't hurt.
Miguel de Icaza point to the advantage of being able to compile from multiple languages.
As a person who've got a feel of writing JVM-targeted compilers, I'd like to notice that it makes extremely poor target for other languages. JVM was designed explicitly for Java, without any other language in mind. Thus, writing translators from other languages takes certain number of convoluted tricks.
If your source language has closures, true lexical scoping, multimethods or multiple inheritance, JVM is clearly a suboptimal vehicle, unless you want to bend over a lot. From performance standpoint, its stack-oriented machine isn't optimal either. JVM architecture also leaves no easy ways to implement proper tail-recursion.
CLR is likely a much better target, but even that one, designed for interoperability from scratch, has some rough edges for non-mainstream programming languages.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Responses that are sure to follow:
The whole C# and .Net thing is a potential competitor in the same arena, but I don't think that Microsoft's inclusion (or not) of Java is going to matter much. I always figured that Java was intended to allow cross-platform desktop app programming, but the niche it seems to be filling is a back-end role. Personally, I had expected Perl to fill this role as the new COBOL, but demand for Perl seems to be way down, except as one of those "we also expect you to know Perl" type things, which never actually turns out to be important in the job.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
The page you list shows a hundred or so that run on the JVM. A similar page for .NET shows only 27.
Not what the marketing folks at Microsoft would have you believe, huh?
---- There is a fine line between sayings that make sense.
The picoJava home page
Sun's annoucement almost 6 years ago that they and Rockwell Collins would be making picoJava chips
I think that it's important to draw a distinction between the Java language and the Java bytecode. The language, IMHO, isn't very good; I much prefer Python, or if I'm developing for the Java platform, Jython. But Java is a form of bytecode that can be compiled to from all sorts of languages, so programs compiled for picoJava cold also be run transparently on many other OSes. Although I think that JIT compilers and Hotswap optimization have made this less important, it still might be nice to have a processor that could run Java bytecode natively.
Still, I'm not too enthusiastic about it.
Are you kidding? How about an extensive, reliable, tested library of networking, user interface, and I/O code which can be used to create "complex applications" extremely easily.
I look at their code and it appears to me like they don't know how to use a relational database, so they spend a bunch of code on reinventing indexing, joining, multi-user contentent management, persistence, searching, sorting, etc
I can't comment on your colleague's coding standards and style, but it appears that they may have been coding cross platform JDBC code, using only simple DB features so that they could switch databases easily. I know it's not unusual to develop initially using something like Apache/Tomcat and MySql, then switch to 3rd party commercial app servers and databases. Anyway, a criticism of their code cannot be taken as a criticism of the language. The fact that you can replace these DB functions in Java code makes it even more flexible.
Java has it's place, but if you come across someone with the opinion that Java is the be all and end all, avoid them.
The very best thing about Java is the marketing hype Sun have managed to create. It's only Mac-o-philes who seem to be more obcessed (a Mac-Java geek is something to behold!).
Java's a decent clean OO language, it's got a good set of standard/accessible powerful libraries, it's handling of libraries is good (compared to say C/C++), it's simple to learn the language basics and the GUI toolkit (swing) is reasonable.
However for me Java has not delivered on it's promises. Performance generally is poor, compared to say Perl, and is dire when compared to C.
Java also failed to deliver it's platform independence - you just get so many problems running on different platforms and different VMs. Compare this to say Perl - if you avoid platform specifics, Perl just works. Even compare to C when using a library to abstract platform independence (e.g. things like in Gnome/Gtk or Qt), it's not so hard and at least the mistakes are usually yours. I know it's not the fault of Java as a language, but if it can't be implemented well, it won't be much good.
The final major reason Java has not delivered is because it's not made programming any easier or error prone - and much has been made of this promise. Yes, gc does save some bugs (it does cause some more, but on the whole it's good). Java does not save you from uneducated developers or people who simply suck as a programmer. I've seen some steaming piles of turds writted in Java by people who really should be better. This can be said of any language, but much was made about Java being a language to make people make less mistakes - they just make different ones.
So use Java with your eyes wide open, it's decent, good in some areas, weak in others and eventually you'll move on to the Next Big Thing TM.
Jamie
I realize that each language has its strengths and weaknesses, but bear with me for a moment. You get hired at a new job, where you inherit a .NET application. As far as anyone knows, it's C#. When you start looking at it further, you realize that it is actually made up of half a dozen languages, all of which you'll have to know at least remotely before you can understand the whole thing. Is this necessarily a _good_ thing? I don't think so. The argument Microsoft uses is "everyone can use what they know, and are most productive in". That's all well and good until those people leave.
I doubt that this qualifies as objective since it is my personal opinion, but I hope it isn't cliche-ridden.
There are several features of Java that I really miss when I have to code in C or C++:
Class.forName
To dynamically load a class, I just do Class.forName(classname). Combined with the Factory pattern, this makes it much easier to create pluggable implementations. You can still do that in C++, it's just harder.
exception.printStackTrace()
C++ has exceptions, but you can't get a stack trace on-the-fly from one. In a Java program, I can handle exceptions and log them to a database for later debugging. That makes it easier to find bugs.
Also, Java lets you know when you have the potential for unhandled exceptions (some people hate that, too, but I like it).
Built-in thread awareness
This one is probably closer to laziness, but I like being able to declare a method or block of code as synchronized, which is essentially the same as protecting it with a mutex. Using something like QMutex in C++ isn't really too much extra work.
Array bounds checking
This is another that C++ can do, but you have to do extra work for it. There are plenty of times when a Java program runs off the end of an array. Instead of giving me a core dump and killing the program (if I'm lucky), I get a nice little exception that I can handle. The same goes for referencing a null pointer (reference).
Garbage Collection
Okay, it's a blessing and a curse. On one hand, I don't have to worry about keeping track of references. On the other hand, you still get memory leaks, and your Java programs consume a lot more memory. Still, I really miss it when I start having to write destructors and copy constructors. In a large system, it is more difficult to keep track of who is supposed to free what memory. You end up using reference-counted pointers, which solve a lot of problems, but not all of them.
Reflection
I don't use reflection very often when writing business logic, but it comes in handy for writing frameworks. It is great to be able to dynamically access methods and fields at runtime (you locate the method/field by name, so it doesn't have to be known at compile time). Many of the networking and database frameworks use reflection to keep you from having to write tons of custom methods just to support the framework.
The libraries
Java has a great set of libraries that come with the standard JRE/JDK. While you can find the equivalent libraries for other languages, with Java you don't have to go searching as much. Plus, you know they're going to work when you move the application from platform to platform.
Java isn't perfect, the runtime is huge, the programs take a good bit of memory, swing still seems clunky to me, but when I have to do a large server application, I'd much rather be coding it in Java than C++.
Show me some objective evidence that Java is superior, not brochure cliches.
There's not going to be objective evidence of a subjective comment. "Superior" is ultimately a matter of opinion. I personally think python is the "superior" language of all those I have tried, but that's my opinion.
What I can say conclusively is that a programmer of equal skill in C++ and Java can write the same program in less lines of Java code. Java does lots of stuff "for free" that gets the job done faster, like memory allocation and garbage collection, and handling pointers transparently. If your goal is a good application written quickly, Java may very well be "superior" for your needs.
Another advantage of Java over other languages (except Perl and Python) is the huge and wonderful library of methods and classes. You can accomplish these goals with C or C++, but generally you have to go out and find the libraries to do what you want, then compile them for your particular platform. Java generally includes them, and for those that are not included, they're distributed pre-compiled for the JVM.
So it's not fair to say Java is "Superior", because that really depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking to build enterprise web applications, Java is likely superior. If you're looking to crunch numbers as fast as possible, you're likely to be happier with C or C++. It depends on the project and the goals.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I know I'm probably missing his, but here's how I view his decision to go with .Net/C#:
.NET and it's VM are dependent upon MS's decision to release a VM. Yeah, you could write your own, but what if MS invokes the DMCA and prevents you from implementing a "full" VM due to patents and the like? Then you're screwed, writing applications that run on a perceived "broken" VM that lacks those things that MS has deemed fit enough to lock in. "Yeah, great, OpenSource to the rescue, we'll port our VM to every platform!" Sure, and getting people to use it? Good luck. Tell Joe IT Manager that he can use a "free, OpenSource VM" from a bunch of anonymous guys on the internet or the "official VM" from MS, what's he gonna pick?
/. comments, etc that do a good job of explaining all of that, but imagine this:
MS made the "important stuff" standardized and "open." It still leaves MS in the position to close off the rest of the "non-important" stuff and that could break compatability. If you're looking for "cross-platform" advantages,
And that leads us to:
The key is to ultimately remove the dependence upon MS products. We've all stated that time and time again. People run MS for Outlook. For Exchange. For a relatively easy sytem to administrate and patch. For Support. There's a million and one papers, editorials,
What if Evolution had been written in Java? OpenOffice, if I'm not mistaken, is written in Java and if I must say so myself, it runs VERY nicely on my machine and does everything I need it to do as an Office Productivity Suite. With OpenOffice, you see lots of people switching from MS Office, avoiding the licensing fees and troubles, and generally LIKING it (there are exceptions.. there needs to be a nice Access competitor or at least a great frontend for something like PostGRE or the like). That's one less reason to use MS, right? Great! OpenOffice runs on Windows, Sun, Linux, OS X (with X11 installed). Most importantly, see Windows? Millions of people can now look forward to using that $500 they'd spend on Office to doing SOMETHING ELSE with their money. Millions of companies can still do business without outlaying a chunk of cash for Office. There's the example.
Now, back to Evolution. If Evolution had been written in Java, like OpenOffice, you wouldn't just have people on *NIX platforms using it. No, you'd be able to use it on Windows, the biggest, most important, and most influential marketplace in the computer industry. What would that mean? Let's say you're Joe IT Manager. You've already switched your desktops to OpenOffice. Now, you could replace Outlook with Evolution, on your Windows systems at work (and saving on the licensing, to boot!). See, it's hard to convince upper management to switch to Linux whole-hogged. But if you do it, one app at a time, eventually you run OUT Of reasons to continue to pay the exorbitant licensing fees to support an Operating System that you no longer need to run the apps you run. Dig it? Dig it! Your users use the new apps, already acclimated to them. Change comes slowly, and for the better. And all that time Ximian spent on working on MONO could have been spent tweaking the interface, developing advanced calendaring functions, developing server-side calendaring/schedule making software, etc. And then Linux slips in quietly through the back door and MS is left to send armies of marketdroids to help woo the companies back, losing their marketshare inch by inch.
I may have Ximian's and Miguel's intentions completely wrong. Linux "desktop" penetration may not be his ultimate goal, although as a Linux vendor it might behoove him to think this way. Linux is inching it's way into the server rooms of corporate America (and the world), and the desktops will be a hard fought battle. Java is the kind of technology that allows you to provide the replacements that will make the transition EASIER.
To conclude, I applaud Miguel for his hard work on MONO (and Evolution, it does fucking kick-ass). Unfortunately, I think it's misguided and ultimately futile.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
So speaking as a nominal expert, while you certainly can translate non-Java languages into bytecodes, the machine clearly isn't designed to be general-use. It has a lot of object-oriented instructions that fit the Java object model and not a lot else. You can adapt them to your language, or you can ignore them and code everything up as one big method call (except that you'll run out of space, since function size is limited, and you can't modify it once written).
I've successfully adapted languages like Prolog and Lisp, and taken advantage of Java objects to provide the continuation-like features of these languages. I've even found a couple of places where you can generate code which could not come from Java code but which is legal and verifiable (e.g. crossed loops).
I use it mostly for small projects. For example, Ontology Works generates Java APIs for its custom database description languages. It generates the bytecodes directly, since the APIs are too large to be conveniently compiled from Java. But that's not a general-purpose language, so the code is actually fairly simple.
I've only glanced at CLI, but it appears to be somewhat more general purpose than JVM bytecodes. (In the end it's all Turing tar pit.) However, CLI a bit more heavily oriented towards calling out to native code, which makes the code less portable and harder to optimize. The JVM also supports native methods, but they receive a lot less encouragement.
Mostly, I'm a huge fan of the way JVM does verification. It's brilliant that you can restrict code to safe code and still be Turing complete by eliminating a large class of safe-but-invalid instruction sequences. You can make huge optimizations to verified code that you can't make to generalized code. Verification also allows much more fine-grained authorization than the Microsoft way, which is all based on signed code.
You always want to choose the best language for the job. C/C++/Java are largely identical, and I think in general a group should pick one and stick to it. But there are languages (Lisp, Prolog, Haskell) which are genuinely different, and I consider it a good thing that you can write compilers for them. That has yet to completely fulfill its promise on the JVM platform, where there are proofs of the concept but they are little used.
Your point about speed of development is a very good one.
I am currently developing a custom database and data collection package that MUST run both on Linux and Windows 2000. As well as the intrinsic functionality, it has a significant GUI component as well. Equally important, I don't have a lot of time to get it done. I considered many options, including C/C++ with QT, vxWindows, GTK and other "cross platform" toolkits, perl, and others. In the end, Java won the day for several reasons:
1. Java plus Swing is the closest to truly cross platform of all of the options. I have written around 6000 lines of code so far and less than a dozen have to be changed to account for differences between Windows and Linux, even though the program does some relatively low-level things like directly accessing modems through serial ports. In addition, the Swing GUI looks EXACTLY the same on all platforms. GUI toolkits which try to give you "native" L&Fs often need tweaking between platforms to look good. Once you get a Swing GUI looking good on one platform, you're done.
2. Java has an extremely complete and easy to use interface to SQL DBMSs (JDBC) which works the same on all platforms.
3. Sun's online documentation is very complete and easy to use (this can be a big plus with speed is important).
3. The higher level nature of Java compared to C/C++ (e.g., automatic memory management, better runtime checking) make for extremely quick debugging. I am achieving operational code with many fewer iterations than I ever did with C/C++. Java may be slightly slower than C++ because of these features, but this particular program is not pushing the performance envelope, so the faster development time is much more valuable.
This is the first sizable project I have programmed in Java, and overall I'm very happy with the results so far. A year ago, that's something I'd never have guessed I'd be saying.
Greetings Tablizer,
I've read many of your posts here on Slashdot as well as your web site. I've found your arguments to be well-written. However, many of your arguments are as subjective as some of the posters here. You say in your own writings, in fact, that you have difficulty thinking about things as objects with behavior. And that, in my _opinion_, is what it's really about.
Programming languages should be built for people, as they represent a communication channel between people and computers. Software texts often must account for communication to other humans, hence the need for comments.
Experienced language designers take this into account. Their experience also leads them to add things to the language to prevent or at least deter common mistakes. Those "good features" in Visual Basic you mention, have produced a history of unreadable and buggy code.
Where would you suggest today's application programmers spend their time? Is it more valuable, more marketable to learn a single OS / OE, a single database (and be a one-trick pony), or should they spend their time on learning a single, rich API that applies to multiple platforms?
I'll make no pretenses that Java is more machine-efficient than C, or that O/R mapping is faster than embedded SQL. I will say that I find domain logic easier to unit test in isolation when you use an O-O domain model with mapping. These test can be automated and even serve as a kind of usage guide to the software.
The point of this is, the Java language has an accepted and refined way to work at a reasonable level of abstraction. If machine-efficiency were always 'better' then we'd all use CPU specific assembly languages.
BTW: The popularity metric does have merit as an argument. Popularity leads to communities. Communities can work together to advance the state of the practice, to share techniques. You complained about this very fact in your essays. 'Not enough people are contributing to the advancement of Procedural/Relational practice,' you said. I believe you are correct, and the reason for this is industry support and community.
Regards,
Michael Murphree
The opinions expressed in this post are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
Well, I am not a java programmer, so I don't know about java, but It seems to me that you are using C arrays in C++. The STL provides several data structures that are indended to replace C arrays. These include vector, and list, both of which dynamically allocate their size and automatically resize if you overflow thier bounds:
int main(){
vector<MyClass> vec_myclass;
MyClass temp;
ifstream fin;
while(!fin)
{
fin >> temp;
vec_myclass.pushback(temp);
}
cout << vec_myclass.size();
return 0;
}
The user doesn't even need to check the size, although that is provided.
...interesting if true.
I used to teach J2EE to wall street developers, and in particular new college grads. Most have no clue what an enterprise application is, so I came up with a working definition.
Enterprise application is a software system that is:
1. Distributed (with all the requisite problems of distributed computing)
2. Secure (authentication, authorization, auditing, and encryption)
3. Scalable (can handle increasing load without a re-write)
4. Heterogeneous
5. Fault tolerant and/or Recoverable
6. As a corollary to (5), usually involves one or more transactional DBMS
Each of these topics by themselves can take years to master.... which is why people tend to hold well-designed "enterprise applications" in high regard.
-Stu