Java is NOT more advanced in features then C++. I don't know where you heard this, or what kind of weed you were smoking when you came to this conclusion.
The code is also not as efficient, although in some cases it might come close, but I doubt overall that is a very valid claim.
C++ is plenty platform independent if you use the right libraries and write your code in a generic enough manner. I can compile an app for win32, linux w/gnome or kde, beos and QNX with our in-house libs with little to no adjustments. There are plenty of third party toolkits that will let you do the same and I can gaurantee you the responsiveness of your user interface, the majority of your backend processing is going to smoke anything you come up with in Java.
Do you really believe that would happen? What percentage of the AIM population use Windows boxes? It's not like Windows users need an alternative AIM client...
The development environmnets for CE is free, unless you're planning on doing embedded work. But for PocketPC's and earlier, you can order a CD or download the shit from Microsoft's site.
Hmm, not really. I can slap IE into any interface I want using Visual Basic, Delphi, DHTML/HTML, C++, C, etc. Plus there are other third party apps that let you do exactly what netscape does.
Then you're software or design for it was horribly flawed. Since we exist in the days of 24+ track audio sequencers running 8+ chains of DSP FX coupled with bitmap intensive interfaces, I can only wonder what you were doing wrong.
If that's not enough, there are the multi-channeled realtime synthesis applications doing DSP that would make your head melt, multiple channels at a time.
I doubt it was an NT or GDI issue at all, possibly more a misunderstanding of how the win32 api works.
This is an interesting preview of bleem on the dreamcast. "Supposedly" bleem will play psx games better then the psx2, or the original for that matter.
We'll see...
I work for a global internet services company and we deploy huge multi-million dollar solutions BOTH on solaris, *BSD and NT.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about NT crashing once a day for an IIS installation, most of our production servers have 4 to 5 month uptimes. I've never seen an NT server that is simply serving pages, dynamic or static, crash. Ever. I have seen the box slowed down, but not because of microsoft, but because of Sun's shoddy JVM and Allaire's crappy JRUN installations.
I've witnessed and worked on deployments of sites that bang massive loads, and you know what? If your site is pulling a million hits a day and you're attempting to box that into one server, then you're a complete moron and deserve to suffer those crashes. No OS is going to save you from that.
For huge sites, the network design is just as important as the application design, and if you fail on implenting a solid design - regardless of what OS you are serving off of - you're going to run into problems.
I live in brooklyn, new york and getting any kind of service in my particular neighborhood was a no go for quite awhile. I finally went with Flashcom.net. Typical story, installation took 3 weeks for the line (but verizon got it right the first time which was a major miracle!) and COVAD was out 2 days afterwards and I was up and running.
For new york people, I would recommend looking at INYC.COM first and then flashcom second. I pay about 80 bucks a month for 2 static IPs @ 1.6mbps down and 384K up. I usually get these speeds too.
Installed like a champ and boots almost as quickly as BeOS. It's not incredibly stable however, many of the screensavers will dump the entire thing, forcing a hard reset.
I like the interface much better then BeOS, but BeOS is obviously ahead of the game in terms of hardware support and stability. The desktop for QNX is pretty interesting and instantly more usable then BeOS. The browser also kicks the living crap out of NetPositive. Another nice plus is the package installer for adding add-ons to QNX. That's pretty slick, but again not very stable - bombing itself twice and being unable to open various packages from the online repository. On the networking note, supports DHCP which had me up and running with no config whatsoever.
On another note, I installed the OS X beta on my G4 today. I was initially impressed with the UI but got annoyed with it rather quickly. Also annoying is using classic apps in OS X as launch time is nearly a minute or two and speed lags well behind. On the plus side, network config was a snap, and the UI does have a few nice things to be said about it, but I felt like a six year old after awhile, which isn't a good feeling. No development tools though!
Why would you need a WAP browser on linux? What would be the point of that?
Gateways already exist for linux (from phone.com) but installing and running your own gateway for a commericial or hobby venture is retarded; unless you are planning on a private wireless intranet. If you are planning for that, then there are solutions that exist already that are 100% java by Nokia. Both options are expensive though...
More then that, WAP is incredibly lame compared to other technologies that exist now: voiceXML, Palm PQAs (web clippings), NTT Docomo's iMode phones, etc. My guess is that the need for WAP/WML as it exists today is going to be eclipsed by telephony applications because they let you get to the information you want faster and with less hassle. A combination of voice and display would, naturally, be killer.
I was at phone.com's Unwired Universe conference in San Francisco this summer and I walked away with a bitter taste in my mouth. Gateways are controlled by telcos, getting your WAP application listed on the gateway costs $$$ (unless your a major like Yahoo), and most US phones don't let you enter in a new address for an alternate gateway so you're SOL if you want to switch. Beyond that WAP is a horribly thought out spec, WML being a crippled lame piece of shit utilizing a horrible metaphor for handheld app development.
Slashdot Mirror
:)
The code is also not as efficient, although in some cases it might come close, but I doubt overall that is a very valid claim.
C++ is plenty platform independent if you use the right libraries and write your code in a generic enough manner. I can compile an app for win32, linux w/gnome or kde, beos and QNX with our in-house libs with little to no adjustments. There are plenty of third party toolkits that will let you do the same and I can gaurantee you the responsiveness of your user interface, the majority of your backend processing is going to smoke anything you come up with in Java.
Do you really believe that would happen? What percentage of the AIM population use Windows boxes? It's not like Windows users need an alternative AIM client...
I agree that some of the simplest components are commercial, but it doesn't take too much to write one in Delphi or VC++.
Right on man.
It's fairly easy...
It's called metacard ... runs on mac, ibm, linux and solaris (I believe).
I'll agree with your other points though.
The development environmnets for CE is free, unless you're planning on doing embedded work. But for PocketPC's and earlier, you can order a CD or download the shit from Microsoft's site.
That's ridiculous.
For WindowsCE you have Visual Basic, Waba, KVM. For Palm, you have AppForge, Satellite Forms Pro, Waba, KVM, PQAs, etc.
Then you've never used delphi.. The compile/link time is rather instantaneous.
Click here for the article
http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/30435.html
Porting WINE to OS X, are you high? What good is that going to do when all of the binaries are built for x86?
Actually, there's argument for nombas inventing javascript and netscape absorbing it's "ideas".
Are you high? "Real" developers use java? Since when?
Hmm, not really. I can slap IE into any interface I want using Visual Basic, Delphi, DHTML/HTML, C++, C, etc. Plus there are other third party apps that let you do exactly what netscape does.
If that's not enough, there are the multi-channeled realtime synthesis applications doing DSP that would make your head melt, multiple channels at a time.
I doubt it was an NT or GDI issue at all, possibly more a misunderstanding of how the win32 api works.
This isn't a flame, btw.
Nope, as explained on codeproject in the Visit to Redmond articles, being fully ANSI compliant with VC++ would break MFC and some other things :)
Oddly enough it works under Win2K.
This is an interesting preview of bleem on the dreamcast. "Supposedly" bleem will play psx games better then the psx2, or the original for that matter. We'll see...
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about NT crashing once a day for an IIS installation, most of our production servers have 4 to 5 month uptimes. I've never seen an NT server that is simply serving pages, dynamic or static, crash. Ever. I have seen the box slowed down, but not because of microsoft, but because of Sun's shoddy JVM and Allaire's crappy JRUN installations.
I've witnessed and worked on deployments of sites that bang massive loads, and you know what? If your site is pulling a million hits a day and you're attempting to box that into one server, then you're a complete moron and deserve to suffer those crashes. No OS is going to save you from that.
For huge sites, the network design is just as important as the application design, and if you fail on implenting a solid design - regardless of what OS you are serving off of - you're going to run into problems.
For new york people, I would recommend looking at INYC.COM first and then flashcom second. I pay about 80 bucks a month for 2 static IPs @ 1.6mbps down and 384K up. I usually get these speeds too.
So far so good ...
I like the interface much better then BeOS, but BeOS is obviously ahead of the game in terms of hardware support and stability. The desktop for QNX is pretty interesting and instantly more usable then BeOS. The browser also kicks the living crap out of NetPositive. Another nice plus is the package installer for adding add-ons to QNX. That's pretty slick, but again not very stable - bombing itself twice and being unable to open various packages from the online repository. On the networking note, supports DHCP which had me up and running with no config whatsoever.
On another note, I installed the OS X beta on my G4 today. I was initially impressed with the UI but got annoyed with it rather quickly. Also annoying is using classic apps in OS X as launch time is nearly a minute or two and speed lags well behind. On the plus side, network config was a snap, and the UI does have a few nice things to be said about it, but I felt like a six year old after awhile, which isn't a good feeling. No development tools though!
Gateways already exist for linux (from phone.com) but installing and running your own gateway for a commericial or hobby venture is retarded; unless you are planning on a private wireless intranet. If you are planning for that, then there are solutions that exist already that are 100% java by Nokia. Both options are expensive though...
More then that, WAP is incredibly lame compared to other technologies that exist now: voiceXML, Palm PQAs (web clippings), NTT Docomo's iMode phones, etc. My guess is that the need for WAP/WML as it exists today is going to be eclipsed by telephony applications because they let you get to the information you want faster and with less hassle. A combination of voice and display would, naturally, be killer.
I was at phone.com's Unwired Universe conference in San Francisco this summer and I walked away with a bitter taste in my mouth. Gateways are controlled by telcos, getting your WAP application listed on the gateway costs $$$ (unless your a major like Yahoo), and most US phones don't let you enter in a new address for an alternate gateway so you're SOL if you want to switch. Beyond that WAP is a horribly thought out spec, WML being a crippled lame piece of shit utilizing a horrible metaphor for handheld app development.
I do this for a living.
-earache