I've seen nothing to convince me the reason isn't primarily Sun's huge marketing.
Sun tried to market Java is the be all/end all of software development. For the most part, the industry said, "yeah, right". As a result, Java acquired a sizable (and undeserved) reputation of being a clunky, slow, over-hyped fad language that failed to live up to expectations.
Meanwhile, some developers ignored the hype, as well as the backlash, and realized that it's actually pretty good for some uses. Over time, it got better, and with it, so did the tools and frameworks. Now, many consider it to be the best option for web application development.
Others, like yourself, disagree.
If you've seen nothing to convince you that Java's success isn't primarily a result of Sun's marketing, then it's doubtful I'll be able to convince you either.
The slight performance boost you get with C++ over Java (assuming that's even still valid) is irrelevant in web application development, where you're generally using really high-end hardware, and your primary performance bottlenecks are the network and the database, not the code. Plus, Java has so many tools and frameworks designed to ease web application development, maintenance, and monitoring.
Add to all that the existence of handy starter applications like AppFuse, which allow me to get a fully functional, robust web application up and running in literally minutes, and there's simply no contest.
Again, it's all about using the right tool for the job, and there's a good reason that a majority of the web application development jobs out there are hiring Java developers.
For the many jobs where you want to deal with the versioning hell that is expecting a given runtime to exist on a particular machine.
Java primarily dominates on the server side. JVM versioning isn't an issue, since you control the server. The clients don't even need a JRE.
If JVM versioning on the target machine is a critical issue for a given job, then maybe Java isn't right for that job. But that doesn't mean it's not right for situations where that isn't an issue.
If you really need performance, Java doesn't cut it compared to C++.
If you're writing a word processor, I'd recommend C++. If you're building an e-commerce website (take something like Amazon or eBay for example), nobody would use C++. They'd use Java -- and they did.
All the people who point to C++ as an alternative are thinking thick-client applications. If that's what you build, great. As I said, use the best tool for the job. I wouldn't use Java for that either. But if you're building web applications, C++ is not the tool.
Windows 95 literally changed the world of personal computing. It was revolutionary in a way that little else in the world of software has ever been. That's your perspective. Mine is quite different, and was quite different when 95 was released. I just kept looking over at my NeXTstation and thinking how lame, ugly and retro Windows 95 was.... I don't think 95 can be called revolutionary, given that superior products were already on the market.
No, it's not my perspective, it's reality. It has nothing to with your opinion or mine. In fact, I despised Windows 95 when it came out and refused to install it.
But that doesn't change the impact it had on personal computing and on society in general. Windows 95 is not just the OS, it is also the hype. Microsoft started a momentum that no other "superior" product had been capable of doing. It revolutionized the way society uses computers -- not just a handful of nerds like you and me who knew better.
I agree with Gates, Win95 was as good as Windows got.
Actually, he didn't say that Windows 95 was as good as Windows got. He said that Windows 95 was a nice milestone.
Windows 95 literally changed the world of personal computing. It was revolutionary in a way that little else in the world of software has ever been. Few companies get the opportunity to produce even one product that has the kind of impact that Windows 95 had, yet people point to the fact that Microsoft hasn't had another like it as an indication of failure.
Microsoft has not put out another product that did to the computing world what Windows 95 did, and Bill knows that. But it doesn't mean that he thinks subsequent Windows versions were crap. In fact, I'm betting he doesn't use Windows 95 on his home PC.
I don't claim to be non-partisan. I can't stand the current Conservative Party. I'm no fan of the former Chretien Liberals, but if you honestly think they were no different, I'd say you haven't been paying enough attention. These guys are incompetent, ultra-secretive, lying, manipulating bastards. Yes, that description can be applied to most (all?) politicians, but the current Conservative Party takes it to an extreme that's new to this country.
I agree that it's good to know the official party position on a subject, not just an individual MP's position. But in the case of the Conservatives, there really is no such thing as an individual MP's position. They "think" what Harper tells them to think.
Does the party system have so much weight up there that your MP doesn't have opinions of his own on the issues?
David Sweet is a member of the Conservative Party, which has formed the most secretive government our country has ever seen, led by a tyrannical Prime Minister who maintains complete control over the members of his party.
No one in the Conservative Party says a word to anyone, anywhere, ever, without first getting an officially authorized script from the Prime Minister's office.
Actually, I was being a little facetious, because you seem to be arguing semantics.
You see, what you said was:
...something is intuitive when it is similar to something we've already experienced (preferably a lot). This is different from being similar to other aspects of the same program (consistent).
This really isn't different. If something is similar to something you've already experienced, then it is intuitive. On that we seem to agree. But then you seem to make the odd distinction that if something is similar to something you've already experienced elsewhere in the same application, then it's something completely different, which you label as "consistent" and therefore not "intuitive".
I'm saying that consistency makes it intuitive. I think the other poster was saying the same thing.
Basically, a user interface is intuitive only within a certain frame of reference. If you have no prior exposure to computers or software at all, then you have no frame of reference for any software UI, and it will therefore likely not be intuitive. If you understand the basics of computer usage (what a mouse does, how to click on buttons, what the "X" button on a window does, etc.), then you have a frame of reference to work with, and any UI that uses these concepts will likely be intuitive to you. If the software UI is designed the same as the UI of a physical device with which you're familiar (ie. tapedeck), then you have a frame of reference to work with and will likely find that interface intuitive as well.
There are many things that help to create a frame of reference. It could be consistency within the interface, it could be a consistent interface between different implementations of the same functionality (ex. a physical tape deck vs. a software tape deck), or it could simply be a similarity to something else with which you're familiar that is analogous to the relevant functionality.
Consistency within a UI and consistency between UIs are both valid ways to establish a frame of reference to make an interface intuitive.
Thus intuitive and consistent are not synonyms in this usage.
I also thought it strange that they found this result unexpected.
Does it surprise them that people who grew up in a time when they weren't constantly bombarded by advertising, and who watched as advertising became more and more pervasive in their lives are less receptive to advertisements than people who grew up in a time of pervasive and intrusive advertising?
Does it surprise them that people who have lived a long time and are less interested in acquiring more junk in their lives are less receptive to advertisements than people who are interested in acquiring more personal possessions?
Does it surprise them that people who have, on average, less disposable income are less receptive to advertising than people who have, on average, more disposable income?
There should be nothing surprising in this result.
If we use the word by its strict dictionary definition, then there cannot possibly be an intuitive software user interface. If you take a person who has never used a computer in their life and has no idea how it works, and sit them down in front of a computer running any software application, they will not intuitively know what to do. They will have to experiment with it, learn what it does (ex. "Oh, it seems that if I move this mouse-shaped device, the arrow on the screen moves accordingly. Now what happens when I press buttons..."), and only then will they start to figure out how to do things.
There has to be a frame of reference. Your frame of reference for so-called "intuitive" software is the other software you've previously used. Anything you ever encounter that seems intuitive is only so because of your previous experiences. That's why people frequently state that the only truly intuitive user interface is the nipple -- and even that's debatable, as some babies take some coaching to figure that one out.
Blender's UI takes extensive training to learn and requires memorized steps for everything.
As I said, I have no experience with Blender and wasn't defending it.
For example, the tapedeck audio recoding software is intuitive to most users in that it is excessively similar to using one of those old tape recorders.
In other words, the interface on the hardware tape deck is consistent with the interface on the software tape deck.
"The buttons don't work the way you'd expect, but once you get used to it, it's really intuitive."
If you don't get how hilarious this is, then you don't know the meaning of the word "intuitive".
I've never used Blender and can't comment on whether or not its UI is intuitive. I intend only to reply to your comments about the meaning of "intuitive".
To an extent, I agree with you. However, being "intuitive" doesn't necessarily only mean that it's immediately obvious how to use it. Sometimes your initial perception of the basic UI concept doesn't match that of the developers, but once you shift your perception accordingly, then it become intuitive.
Basically, you may encounter a UI that makes no sense to you. Then you learn how it works, but each time you go to do an action, you have to stop and think about how to do it, and rely on memorized steps. This is not an intuitive interface.
On the other hand, you may encounter a UI that makes no sense to you, but once you grasp the UI's concept, you find that you don't have to rely on memorized steps, they just make sense based on your new understanding of the UI concept. That's a UI that has become intuitive.
In other words, it's intuitive to a person who understands the concept. All you have to do is learn the concept.
Something only truly becomes obsolete when it no longer satisfies today's needs.
So true.
The word "obsolete" used to mean "no longer functionally necessary, outdated, or inferior to newer alternatives". Now people just use the word to mean "old", where "old" can be defined as as little as one year of age.
This discussion is getting old and going nowhere. I'll just say this: If you murder someone in a hospital by exploiting a previously unknown flaw in a life support system, even though you've revealed a flaw that needs to be addressed, you still committed murder and should be charged.
The case under discussion is obviously much less extreme, but the point remains that if you play a stupid prank, you should expect to be punished.
In fact, the guy in the article fully expected to be punished. He knew he was doing something wrong, even if you don't.
Yes he did. If he had wanted to raise awareness of the problems with the system, all he had to do was report it. But he had no interest in raising awareness, he just wanted to play a silly prank. So he did, and he got caught. I have no sympathy for him.
Anyone who sees something like this vote that has the appearance (and requirement) of security and anonymity but is not actually secure, has an obligation to let everyone else know. But if he'd brought the issue up in quietly (as in, able to be swept under the rug) he'd have still be charged with hacking and the school would have let the election continue.
Um, can you explain to me how he could be "charged with hacking" if he hadn't actually done anything yet?
If you see a problem in a system, you report it to those responsible for that system. If they do nothing, you let everyone know about it (campus newspaper, for example).
But all of that is irrelevant because he wasn't trying to make anyone aware of anything, he was just playing a stupid prank.
Give it up. He's no freakin' hero. According to the article, even he agrees with me.
Those words "essential" and "temporary" are kinda key there...
Exactly. In fact, omitting those words makes every one of us deserving of neither liberty nor security, as the very concept of a systems of laws is the sacrificing of liberty for security.
I give up my liberty to kill anyone who pisses me off in return for the security of knowing that I'm not likely to get killed by someone who I pissed off.
No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject. Baloney. The former CEO of MySQL even posted otherwise right here on slashdot...
The decision was made and then was reversed.
I read Marten's post when the story originally came up. Apparently you didn't. He clearly states that no decision had yet been made. Nothing has been reversed.
He broke the law and cost the school thousands of dollars. Just because something good comes out of it doesn't change what he did.
Obligatory car analogy: "Thank you Mr. car thief for stealing my car. I wasn't aware it was so easy to steal it. Don't worry, you taught me a valuable lesson about using a club and installing an immobilizer, so I won't press charges."
No, not every year. If you follow the thread up a little, the suggestion that I was adding this comment to was 10 years initially, followed by 5 year intervals. That sounds reasonable enough to me, although I would suggest slightly different time frames for different types of works. For example, the expected life of software is nowhere near as long as the expected life of a book. 10 year old software is obsolete.
Then again, I'm not sure copyright is the best way to protect software. As a developer, I write source code, but it's the binary that gets distributed. But that's a whole other discussion entirely.
As a small aside, the Slashdot headline of the original article was not entirely accurate.
Actually, that headline and this headline are completely inaccurate, because both mentioned a decision where none had been made.
MySQL had not decided to use a closed source license. They were considering many different licenses, including a closed source license -- but also including the GPL and other open source licenses. No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject.
This isn't much of a change. They hadn't made up their mind regarding what license would be used for the new backup utilities. They just hadn't ruled out proprietary licensing. Now they have.
It wasn't much of a story before, and it's only slightly more of a story now.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun tried to market Java is the be all/end all of software development. For the most part, the industry said, "yeah, right". As a result, Java acquired a sizable (and undeserved) reputation of being a clunky, slow, over-hyped fad language that failed to live up to expectations.
Meanwhile, some developers ignored the hype, as well as the backlash, and realized that it's actually pretty good for some uses. Over time, it got better, and with it, so did the tools and frameworks. Now, many consider it to be the best option for web application development.
Others, like yourself, disagree.
If you've seen nothing to convince you that Java's success isn't primarily a result of Sun's marketing, then it's doubtful I'll be able to convince you either.
The slight performance boost you get with C++ over Java (assuming that's even still valid) is irrelevant in web application development, where you're generally using really high-end hardware, and your primary performance bottlenecks are the network and the database, not the code. Plus, Java has so many tools and frameworks designed to ease web application development, maintenance, and monitoring.
Add to all that the existence of handy starter applications like AppFuse, which allow me to get a fully functional, robust web application up and running in literally minutes, and there's simply no contest.
Again, it's all about using the right tool for the job, and there's a good reason that a majority of the web application development jobs out there are hiring Java developers.
Java primarily dominates on the server side. JVM versioning isn't an issue, since you control the server. The clients don't even need a JRE.
If JVM versioning on the target machine is a critical issue for a given job, then maybe Java isn't right for that job. But that doesn't mean it's not right for situations where that isn't an issue.
If you're writing a word processor, I'd recommend C++. If you're building an e-commerce website (take something like Amazon or eBay for example), nobody would use C++. They'd use Java -- and they did.
All the people who point to C++ as an alternative are thinking thick-client applications. If that's what you build, great. As I said, use the best tool for the job. I wouldn't use Java for that either. But if you're building web applications, C++ is not the tool.
No, it's not my perspective, it's reality. It has nothing to with your opinion or mine. In fact, I despised Windows 95 when it came out and refused to install it.
But that doesn't change the impact it had on personal computing and on society in general. Windows 95 is not just the OS, it is also the hype. Microsoft started a momentum that no other "superior" product had been capable of doing. It revolutionized the way society uses computers -- not just a handful of nerds like you and me who knew better.
... Which suggests that you haven't coded for very long.Actually, it suggests that he hasn't coded Java for very long.
Regardless, if you're building a web application, you're probably not going to build it in Bash. The right tool for the job, and all that.
It's silly to say "Language A is better than Language B". What makes more sense is "Language A is better than Language B at task X."
Java is the right tool for many jobs. It'll die shortly after C dies (in other words, not anytime soon).
Actually, he didn't say that Windows 95 was as good as Windows got. He said that Windows 95 was a nice milestone.
Windows 95 literally changed the world of personal computing. It was revolutionary in a way that little else in the world of software has ever been. Few companies get the opportunity to produce even one product that has the kind of impact that Windows 95 had, yet people point to the fact that Microsoft hasn't had another like it as an indication of failure.
Microsoft has not put out another product that did to the computing world what Windows 95 did, and Bill knows that. But it doesn't mean that he thinks subsequent Windows versions were crap. In fact, I'm betting he doesn't use Windows 95 on his home PC.
Not only that, but the MP3s legally purchased from, for example, my band from our website don't have a purchase date in the ID3 tag.
Apparently, according to RIAA members, purchasing independent music is theft, too.
I don't claim to be non-partisan. I can't stand the current Conservative Party. I'm no fan of the former Chretien Liberals, but if you honestly think they were no different, I'd say you haven't been paying enough attention. These guys are incompetent, ultra-secretive, lying, manipulating bastards. Yes, that description can be applied to most (all?) politicians, but the current Conservative Party takes it to an extreme that's new to this country.
I agree that it's good to know the official party position on a subject, not just an individual MP's position. But in the case of the Conservatives, there really is no such thing as an individual MP's position. They "think" what Harper tells them to think.
David Sweet is a member of the Conservative Party, which has formed the most secretive government our country has ever seen, led by a tyrannical Prime Minister who maintains complete control over the members of his party.
No one in the Conservative Party says a word to anyone, anywhere, ever, without first getting an officially authorized script from the Prime Minister's office.Actually, I was being a little facetious, because you seem to be arguing semantics.
You see, what you said was:
...something is intuitive when it is similar to something we've already experienced (preferably a lot). This is different from being similar to other aspects of the same program (consistent).This really isn't different. If something is similar to something you've already experienced, then it is intuitive. On that we seem to agree. But then you seem to make the odd distinction that if something is similar to something you've already experienced elsewhere in the same application, then it's something completely different, which you label as "consistent" and therefore not "intuitive".
I'm saying that consistency makes it intuitive. I think the other poster was saying the same thing.
Basically, a user interface is intuitive only within a certain frame of reference. If you have no prior exposure to computers or software at all, then you have no frame of reference for any software UI, and it will therefore likely not be intuitive. If you understand the basics of computer usage (what a mouse does, how to click on buttons, what the "X" button on a window does, etc.), then you have a frame of reference to work with, and any UI that uses these concepts will likely be intuitive to you. If the software UI is designed the same as the UI of a physical device with which you're familiar (ie. tapedeck), then you have a frame of reference to work with and will likely find that interface intuitive as well.
There are many things that help to create a frame of reference. It could be consistency within the interface, it could be a consistent interface between different implementations of the same functionality (ex. a physical tape deck vs. a software tape deck), or it could simply be a similarity to something else with which you're familiar that is analogous to the relevant functionality.
Consistency within a UI and consistency between UIs are both valid ways to establish a frame of reference to make an interface intuitive.
Thus intuitive and consistent are not synonyms in this usage.No, they're not synonyms. One enables the other.
I also thought it strange that they found this result unexpected.
Does it surprise them that people who grew up in a time when they weren't constantly bombarded by advertising, and who watched as advertising became more and more pervasive in their lives are less receptive to advertisements than people who grew up in a time of pervasive and intrusive advertising?
Does it surprise them that people who have lived a long time and are less interested in acquiring more junk in their lives are less receptive to advertisements than people who are interested in acquiring more personal possessions?
Does it surprise them that people who have, on average, less disposable income are less receptive to advertising than people who have, on average, more disposable income?
There should be nothing surprising in this result.
If we use the word by its strict dictionary definition, then there cannot possibly be an intuitive software user interface. If you take a person who has never used a computer in their life and has no idea how it works, and sit them down in front of a computer running any software application, they will not intuitively know what to do. They will have to experiment with it, learn what it does (ex. "Oh, it seems that if I move this mouse-shaped device, the arrow on the screen moves accordingly. Now what happens when I press buttons..."), and only then will they start to figure out how to do things.
There has to be a frame of reference. Your frame of reference for so-called "intuitive" software is the other software you've previously used. Anything you ever encounter that seems intuitive is only so because of your previous experiences. That's why people frequently state that the only truly intuitive user interface is the nipple -- and even that's debatable, as some babies take some coaching to figure that one out.
Blender's UI takes extensive training to learn and requires memorized steps for everything.As I said, I have no experience with Blender and wasn't defending it.
In other words, the interface on the hardware tape deck is consistent with the interface on the software tape deck.
"The buttons don't work the way you'd expect, but once you get used to it, it's really intuitive."
If you don't get how hilarious this is, then you don't know the meaning of the word "intuitive".
I've never used Blender and can't comment on whether or not its UI is intuitive. I intend only to reply to your comments about the meaning of "intuitive".
To an extent, I agree with you. However, being "intuitive" doesn't necessarily only mean that it's immediately obvious how to use it. Sometimes your initial perception of the basic UI concept doesn't match that of the developers, but once you shift your perception accordingly, then it become intuitive.
Basically, you may encounter a UI that makes no sense to you. Then you learn how it works, but each time you go to do an action, you have to stop and think about how to do it, and rely on memorized steps. This is not an intuitive interface.
On the other hand, you may encounter a UI that makes no sense to you, but once you grasp the UI's concept, you find that you don't have to rely on memorized steps, they just make sense based on your new understanding of the UI concept. That's a UI that has become intuitive.
In other words, it's intuitive to a person who understands the concept. All you have to do is learn the concept.
So true.
The word "obsolete" used to mean "no longer functionally necessary, outdated, or inferior to newer alternatives". Now people just use the word to mean "old", where "old" can be defined as as little as one year of age.
This discussion is getting old and going nowhere. I'll just say this: If you murder someone in a hospital by exploiting a previously unknown flaw in a life support system, even though you've revealed a flaw that needs to be addressed, you still committed murder and should be charged.
The case under discussion is obviously much less extreme, but the point remains that if you play a stupid prank, you should expect to be punished.
In fact, the guy in the article fully expected to be punished. He knew he was doing something wrong, even if you don't.
Yes he did. If he had wanted to raise awareness of the problems with the system, all he had to do was report it. But he had no interest in raising awareness, he just wanted to play a silly prank. So he did, and he got caught. I have no sympathy for him.
Anyone who sees something like this vote that has the appearance (and requirement) of security and anonymity but is not actually secure, has an obligation to let everyone else know. But if he'd brought the issue up in quietly (as in, able to be swept under the rug) he'd have still be charged with hacking and the school would have let the election continue.Um, can you explain to me how he could be "charged with hacking" if he hadn't actually done anything yet?
If you see a problem in a system, you report it to those responsible for that system. If they do nothing, you let everyone know about it (campus newspaper, for example).
But all of that is irrelevant because he wasn't trying to make anyone aware of anything, he was just playing a stupid prank.
Give it up. He's no freakin' hero. According to the article, even he agrees with me.
Oh, and also, it wasn't Benjamin Franklin who said that. It was in a book that he published, but did not write.
Exactly. In fact, omitting those words makes every one of us deserving of neither liberty nor security, as the very concept of a systems of laws is the sacrificing of liberty for security.
I give up my liberty to kill anyone who pisses me off in return for the security of knowing that I'm not likely to get killed by someone who I pissed off.
I read Marten's post when the story originally came up. Apparently you didn't. He clearly states that no decision had yet been made. Nothing has been reversed.
Follow your own link.
He broke the law and cost the school thousands of dollars. Just because something good comes out of it doesn't change what he did.
Obligatory car analogy: "Thank you Mr. car thief for stealing my car. I wasn't aware it was so easy to steal it. Don't worry, you taught me a valuable lesson about using a club and installing an immobilizer, so I won't press charges."
No, not every year. If you follow the thread up a little, the suggestion that I was adding this comment to was 10 years initially, followed by 5 year intervals. That sounds reasonable enough to me, although I would suggest slightly different time frames for different types of works. For example, the expected life of software is nowhere near as long as the expected life of a book. 10 year old software is obsolete.
Then again, I'm not sure copyright is the best way to protect software. As a developer, I write source code, but it's the binary that gets distributed. But that's a whole other discussion entirely.
Actually, that headline and this headline are completely inaccurate, because both mentioned a decision where none had been made.
MySQL had not decided to use a closed source license. They were considering many different licenses, including a closed source license -- but also including the GPL and other open source licenses. No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject.
This isn't much of a change. They hadn't made up their mind regarding what license would be used for the new backup utilities. They just hadn't ruled out proprietary licensing. Now they have.
It wasn't much of a story before, and it's only slightly more of a story now.