But either this should be a problem for other languages as well (which wouldn't explain Java apps relative slowness) or Java is a language that makes good performance hard to achieve.
Are you claiming that MS copied 85% of java's vm source code into.NET or are you under the mistaken impression that Sun invented VM's so that anyone who creates one is performing a "straight rip-off"?
This works both ways, however. If you already have Windows servers, it doesn't make sense to rewrite in Java just so you can port from one Unix system you don't own to other Unix systems you don't own.
Isn't it much more likely that the difference in performance between a J2SE app and J2ME app has to do with the differences between the J2SE platform and the J2ME platform, rather than the "mindset" of developers.
You mean MS, who recently fought tooth-and-nail to not include Sun's Java in Windows, is some sort of threat to "embrace and extend" it in the future? MS flirtation with Java was over years ago and pure Java would be a very poor choice of a programming language for.NET.
I merely suggested "cultural bias" as a possible explanation. In any case, I meant "cultural bias" in a very broad sense. That would include not only their ancestry or race, but things like: how they dressed, age, personality etc.
NO. The dot-com bubble was caused by high investment is worthless businesses. It had nothing to do with the quality of workers. Of course a comment along the lines of "All coders are shit except for a small elite that I'm part of" is always welcomed by the 90% of Slashdotters who also consider themselves part of that tiny elite.
Dear AC, Apparently you are lost. This is Slashdot, not a Linux discussion group. I have no doubt that "Mr. Torvalds" would not want to be considered the CEO here.
"Two of those have been willing to pay whatever they had to for qualified programmers and had a hard time finding 'qualified applicants'."
And how exactly would a qualified programmer know that your company was "willing to pay whatever they had to"? I'll bet you didn't even advertise a salary range. The fact is that if you can't find a qualified programmer with 3 months you probably have some other competing agenda (low salary, cultural bias, etc) that is more important than hiring someone.
Why is the idea that Gates was, indeed, a programmer so hard to believe? They had a tiny company at the start. There was no reason to have anyone in the company standing around doing nothing and taking all the credit.
Bill Gates was a programmer just like most Slasdotters, but he is far richer than any of the rest of us will ever be.
Try this:
You've gotta say "I'm' a human being, goddammit! My life has value! Just as much as Bill Gates!"
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, "I'm mad as hell at Bill Gates and MS, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"
Feel better? Now let's get over the denial and move on.
That might be a good argument if the early versions of Windows were a big hit, but they weren't. So clearly being an extension of MS-DOS was not sufficient to make Windows popular.
And some other guy will try to argue that there's some logical flaw in the idea that a CS professor doesn't understand real-world software development just because this idea is expressed on a product of computer science.
Of course, most of the technology that made the Internet possible was created by individuals who were not trained in computer science and were not academics, but that's another issue.
"We don't let everyone drive a car because they can wreck havoc on the streets. Why do we permit untrained users to use a computer when they can wreck havoc on the thing (costing them money) and wreck havoc on the web (when they become a zombie-node or a virus safehouse)?"
OK, so you think untrained users should not use a computer. What does that have to do with Linux's readiness to be adopted by the masses? Are Linux vendors going to start offering free training classes?
"They are just not given the oppurtunity to be. Companies like Microsoft usually don't try to allow people be smart, in fact its usually the case that these companies develop a business model based around people being ignorant and lazy. "
Like any tool, the purpose of a computer is to make it easier for humans to accomplish something than it would be for them to do it on their own. Laziness is the core motivation for developing tools, there would be no computers without it. If you want to be pure, don't use computers - just use pencil and paper (oops, those are tools too that encourage people to be lazy about doing calculations in their heads).
WordPerfect was available on many different platforms. They should have been working on a Windows version long before OS/2 was imminent (Ironically WordPerfect's eventual owner, Corel, didn't made that mistake). The reason they didn't had nothing to do with OS/2, it was because their word-processing philosophy was totally against everything Windows stood for. They prided themselves on having a "blank sheet" interface uncluttered by menus or other user-friendly devices (yes, they added a menu very late, but it was turned off by default).
I remember the president of WordPerfect Corp saying that they really didn't want to do a Windows version but they were going to due to customer demand. When they finally delivered a Windows version it was crap. I crashed it in the first 15 mins of use.
And it pretty much worked out that way if you equate "the Java community" to Sun, Inc (which was pretty much the case back then). The "constructive input" consisted of millions of dollars paid to Sun for making Java more attractive on Windows without Sun's permission.
Slashdot Mirror
But either this should be a problem for other languages as well (which wouldn't explain Java apps relative slowness) or Java is a language that makes good performance hard to achieve.
Are you claiming that MS copied 85% of java's vm source code into .NET or are you under the mistaken impression that Sun invented VM's so that anyone who creates one is performing a "straight rip-off"?
NIH just supports my position. They didn't want it.
"IBM doesn't want anybody (read Microsoft) to take any VM technology and put it into .Net."
.Net either.
Hey, then everybody is in agreement because MS doesn't want any of Java's VM technology in
This works both ways, however. If you already have Windows servers, it doesn't make sense to rewrite in Java just so you can port from one Unix system you don't own to other Unix systems you don't own.
If MS wanted to own java, they would have bought it already.
Isn't it much more likely that the difference in performance between a J2SE app and J2ME app has to do with the differences between the J2SE platform and the J2ME platform, rather than the "mindset" of developers.
You mean MS, who recently fought tooth-and-nail to not include Sun's Java in Windows, is some sort of threat to "embrace and extend" it in the future? MS flirtation with Java was over years ago and pure Java would be a very poor choice of a programming language for .NET.
True, you didn't. Don't be too hard on yourself though. SuperCoders are more myth than reality.
I merely suggested "cultural bias" as a possible explanation. In any case, I meant "cultural bias" in a very broad sense. That would include not only their ancestry or race, but things like: how they dressed, age, personality etc.
NO. The dot-com bubble was caused by high investment is worthless businesses. It had nothing to do with the quality of workers. Of course a comment along the lines of "All coders are shit except for a small elite that I'm part of" is always welcomed by the 90% of Slashdotters who also consider themselves part of that tiny elite.
Dear AC, Apparently you are lost. This is Slashdot, not a Linux discussion group. I have no doubt that "Mr. Torvalds" would not want to be considered the CEO here.
"Two of those have been willing to pay whatever they had to for qualified programmers and had a hard time finding 'qualified applicants'."
And how exactly would a qualified programmer know that your company was "willing to pay whatever they had to"? I'll bet you didn't even advertise a salary range. The fact is that if you can't find a qualified programmer with 3 months you probably have some other competing agenda (low salary, cultural bias, etc) that is more important than hiring someone.
The guy wrote in assembly language which gives him a lot more "geek cred" than most Slashdotter's can lay claim to IMHO.
Why is the idea that Gates was, indeed, a programmer so hard to believe? They had a tiny company at the start. There was no reason to have anyone in the company standing around doing nothing and taking all the credit.
Bill Gates was a programmer just like most Slasdotters, but he is far richer than any of the rest of us will ever be.
Try this:
You've gotta say "I'm' a human being, goddammit! My life has value! Just as much as Bill Gates!"
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, "I'm mad as hell at Bill Gates and MS, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"
Feel better? Now let's get over the denial and move on.
That might be a good argument if the early versions of Windows were a big hit, but they weren't. So clearly being an extension of MS-DOS was not sufficient to make Windows popular.
It's hard to imagine what law Europe would use to chomp MS with for this deal.
If this is what the future holds, then the average project will be so bloated that Vista will look like a "hello world" program by comparison.
And some other guy will try to argue that there's some logical flaw in the idea that a CS professor doesn't understand real-world software development just because this idea is expressed on a product of computer science.
Of course, most of the technology that made the Internet possible was created by individuals who were not trained in computer science and were not academics, but that's another issue.
"We don't let everyone drive a car because they can wreck havoc on the streets. Why do we permit untrained users to use a computer when they can wreck havoc on the thing (costing them money) and wreck havoc on the web (when they become a zombie-node or a virus safehouse)?"
OK, so you think untrained users should not use a computer. What does that have to do with Linux's readiness to be adopted by the masses? Are Linux vendors going to start offering free training classes?
"They are just not given the oppurtunity to be. Companies like Microsoft usually don't try to allow people be smart, in fact its usually the case that these companies develop a business model based around people being ignorant and lazy. "
Like any tool, the purpose of a computer is to make it easier for humans to accomplish something than it would be for them to do it on their own. Laziness is the core motivation for developing tools, there would be no computers without it. If you want to be pure, don't use computers - just use pencil and paper (oops, those are tools too that encourage people to be lazy about doing calculations in their heads).
Of course many enthusiasts were and still are thieves and pirates, so that tradition continues as well.
WordPerfect was available on many different platforms. They should have been working on a Windows version long before OS/2 was imminent (Ironically WordPerfect's eventual owner, Corel, didn't made that mistake). The reason they didn't had nothing to do with OS/2, it was because their word-processing philosophy was totally against everything Windows stood for. They prided themselves on having a "blank sheet" interface uncluttered by menus or other user-friendly devices (yes, they added a menu very late, but it was turned off by default).
I remember the president of WordPerfect Corp saying that they really didn't want to do a Windows version but they were going to due to customer demand. When they finally delivered a Windows version it was crap. I crashed it in the first 15 mins of use.
"The same ones who lose money on everything they do except Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL?"
That's pretty much the situation for Novell except they don't have the billion dollar exceptions that you listed for MS.
And it pretty much worked out that way if you equate "the Java community" to Sun, Inc (which was pretty much the case back then). The "constructive input" consisted of millions of dollars paid to Sun for making Java more attractive on Windows without Sun's permission.