I thought about some linux stuff once, just thought I'd warn you that you are all infringing my IP rights. The pricing structure for you to licence my IP is currently undecided, but I will be sure to offer/. users a discount; just because I'm a nice guy
Re:I'd like to take this oppertunity..
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 1
That is true, very true. But the point I was trying to make is that Java is not slow. While not fast enough for situations where time is of the upmost importance (which for the majority of applications it is not; but not all of them) C/C++ is really the only option. I have just had it with people saying Java is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow when the reality dictates otherwise.
Re:I'd like to take this oppertunity..
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 1
You idiot. I am sick of hearing people say how slow Java is, I've had enough. Look here (a repeat of benchmarking done 2 years ago found here) to find benchmarks showing some Java code (using jdk1.4.1) running faster then C++ code compiled with GCC. I'm not saying Java is faster then C++, what I am saying is that Java is not slow, the difference is small and getting smaller, and I think it speaks directly to the intellect of "malocchio" when he bases his opinions on what may have been the case SEVERAL years ago. But that's just me.
I know not why this debate is still raging on. Not once but twice now have I presented you with logic and fact, and not once but twice now have you replied with the same, illogical, ill-informed opinion. I grow tired, but for some reason I feel compelled to reply.
"The Java native interface was never designed for speed. It is much slower interfacing external languages such as C or C++" I never said it was designed for speed. Of course it is slower then linking to it directly, however linking to it directly costs us platform independence, thus violating one of the major points of using Java (apart from the superior set of class libraries guaranteed to be available wherever the JVM is, a huge step over C/C++).
"If the Java virtual machine were written in C or C++ it would be extendable" you do not extend the Java Virtual Machine; it is the common ground you target. The fact that you state this signals to everyone that you do not fully understand the concepts and philosophies behind Java. Again, extending the JVM in custom ways would mean that these extensions would need to be applied to every JVM that is to run your program. Even then, it could only be run on the platform that you had provided a custom extension for. This is not the way of Java. The JVM is your target, you know what it is and what it provides, this is what frees developers from having to bloat their own applications with a library (of their own re-invented wheels) of helper bits and pieces to support their application. It also provides a common set of components that are tested and debugged (removing the need for the developer to do so, into the bargain, removing the cost).
"It would be difficult to implement an open source Java because the library is honking huge and there is no reference standard for Java." Java the language is a set of specifications, and there are open source implementations. In case you missed it in my last post http://www.kaffe.org is one that is shipped with virtually ever major linux distribution. You don't use Java and extend the JVM, doing so ruins much of what Java stands for. Sun gives you the JVM for virtually any platform you can possibly do any proper development for, and it does so for free. If you wish to extends the capabilities of the base classes, you can, you just extend them. I would like to see one good reason why you would want to extend the JVM.
"You can do anything in Python that you can in Java. You can also do more besides because you can extend Python with the native C code and change it to suit your needs" No, no you can't. I would like to see you write me a complex GUI that I can run on my Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac all with the same code. Please try to refrain from attempting to pass of completely false statements of opinion as fact; it does not help your creditability. Please give me a real situation where you would want to do what you say, and at the same time show how you could not achieve this in Java.
"Another site that criticizes Java is this:
http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html"
I will quote directly from the above URL:
"I think Java is the best language going today"
"Java is far, far more pleasant to work with than C or C++ or Perl or Tcl/Tk or even Emacs-Lisp. When I first started using Java, it felt like an old friend: like finally I was back using a real object system, before the blights of C (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's a language) and C++ (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's an object system) took over the world."
Moving on; "Separating Java the language from Java the library is also important" Yes, this is true to an extent, however then you consider how pointless this is. Everywhere Java is, so is the base class library, it is there to be used, why would one ignore it?
"If you want to change APIs to APIs to APIs you have to change and deprecate the old APIs and maintain a huge library of old code as well as new code." As you will recall from my previous post, deprecation is a signal to
Horses for courses. I have a friend currently programming something in VB5, and while I loathe VB in all its forms, I do support the fact that for his given program, he can accomplish his goals far quicker and easier in VB, for his course, VB is the horse.
I never stated that speed doesn't matter, what I did say (and I will quote my own voice as it appears to be the only one of reason here) is that "when machines have reached a point where this sacrifice of the speed difference between Java and C++ becomes negligible". This is a point I will again state. For the vast majority (but not all) of circumstances, the speed gained by C++ is not necessary. However, when you consider that my C++ application written for windows my have large chunks of it rewritten if I desire to run it anywhere else; yet my same application written in Java required not a single line to be changed, it means that my Java application is FASTER to develop, therefore costing less, and that I speed less time in debugging (as I have one application to debug rather then virtually two), and therefore costs less again, I ask you, would you like to pay for my C++ one or my Java one?
The end of your last reply listed some things that Sun has to worry about (such as small market shares for its servers etc...) yet this still poses the question. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENT? In your initial post you said that Sun only invented Java because it wanted to sell more Sun stuff! This is where I draw the line, and I will return to this in conjunction with my next point. You also state that Sun is afraid of open source??!?!?! Yet Jakarta Tomcat, the REFERCENCE implementation of the Java Servlets and JSP standards was GIVEN AWAY TO APACHE BY SUN! I think you'll agree that for a company so afraid of open source that was a pretty silly move.
I will quote you directly here: "there is no open source implementation of Java". This proves the point I made in the previous post regarding you having no authority to comment an ANYTHING related to Java at all (given you continually prove your knowledge of it is, at the very best, equal to the man on the streets knowledge of the social lives some obscure species; possibly that of the aging systems programmer with no ability to think into the future). It's called Kaffe mate, and it ships with virtually every major linux distribution available. Which brings me to my next quote: "Sun is afraid of JBoss and Linux and open source", Ok, firstly, how is sun afraid of JBoss? JBoss is (and this quote comes directly from their sourceforge page) an "Open Source, standards-compliant, J2EE based application server implemented in 100% Pure Java". So it is an application server, just like the may others (Weblogic, Webshpere, Oracle 9i and the list goes on), so what makes JBoss so special that Sun is so scared of it then? Answer me that. ALSO, Sun is scared of Linux? So it releases Java, the mantra of which (and I will quote you again) is "Platform independence". Yes, that makes sense, Sun is scared so they release something you can run on any platform (and provide a JVM the world, free of charge, with a JVM for many platforms, LINUX INCLUDED).
Let's move on to your next un-enlightened quote shall we. "You can't interface Java with C or C++. And you certainly can't mix or combine languages like you can in c#." Just as with your statement about there being no open-source implementation of Java, here, you are again COMPLETELY WRONG. The Java Native Interface (JNI) allows Java code to communicate with code written in C/C++. On top of that, you could use other standards such as CORBA to achieve this should you feel the need. The ability to mix and combine languages as you state is a feature of C# is indeed not a feature of C#, but is a feature of the.NET platform. Compilers exist to compile Java code to IL (which C# is compiled to), and Microsoft themselves have even released J#, giving people the ability to write code for the.NET platform using Java syntax. While we are on the topic of.NET and C# (which you seem to tout as being fine, where Java is the devils right hand man), what is it that makes the Java base class library (which provides developers with a stable, consistent platform to use, one
This is the first time I have posted at slash dot and I made the mistake of posting as HTML without including any 's I apologise if this makes my response difficult to read.
Your post really demonstrates absolutely that you are completely ill informed and unable to prepare any sort of real argument against Java for C++. I am sick and tired of people crying "Java is to slow" as this viewpoint just personifies the inability of people like yourself to think no further ahead then tomorrow. Firstly, the concession must be made that Java GUIs, particularly those with a great deal going on are slow and simply can not compete with their natively compiled competitors. That said, Java for any other purpose is NOT slow; yes, it is slower then C++, but that does not make it slow. If speed is the only thing C++ can claim over Java then that will prove to be a big problem for simpletons like yourself in two years when machines have reached a point where this sacrifice of the speed difference between Java and C++ becomes negligible. Java is aiming for something larger then speed (something that it seems ill informed people such as yourself simply can not grasp), simplicity, and I'm not just talking simple to program with. The effort required to create a new thread in C++, or to open a socket connection is quite frankly, unacceptable. The fact that the same thing can be achieved in Java in 3 lines or less of code proves my point. Try and port an application from Windows to *nix or back the other way, go on, try. I'll take my Java application and deliver it before you can even begin to comprehend the amount of work you are in for.
"Whereas Java and C# are really niche languages that fail to succeed where C++ left off and improve on Native compilation or systems programming" This would have to have been my favourite quote from your comments. Java is a niche? I have news for you, give the wide breadth of projects out there in the REAL world (some place you obviously do not live) systems programming is the niece. Java can not compete with C++ for systems programming, as JAVA WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING!!!!! You say Java ships with bloated class libraries? Let's just ignore the fact that these *large* (not bloated) class libraries that ship with Java free developers for the hassle of organising numerous little third party libraries for their applications. Let's just ignore the fact it provides developers with a robust, COMMON platform on which to develop and target. The reason you perceive such tight coupling with the Java base class libraries and the language steams from the fact that Java is a platform, not just a language, and this is the one point that seems to elude the throngs of people such as yourself who believe themselves to posses more geek karma then anyone who could possibly even think of using a language where pointers are not allowed, and your simple minded opinions and utter gutter trash of arguments p*!# me off to no end.
You state that System.out.println() is bloated, yet at the same time say that Console.WriteLine() is not. I am curious, apart from the 1 character (yes, that is correct, 1 character) difference in the two statements, what makes System.out.println() so bloated? In addition, System.out.printline() as you would have it is spelt incorrectly, and for you to make an amateur mistake such as this proves to me that you have no authority what so ever to comment on anything Java related at all. Further to that point, you have also provided incorrect casing for Console.WriteLine(), which suggests to me that your knowledge of the languages from which these two examples come is, at best, extremely sub par.
"The enmity of OOP is class libraries that extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat" Firstly, enmity means ill-will or hatred, so are you trying to say the "hatred of class libraries the extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat"? I really hope you are, as that would prove you have a similar command of the English language as you have of what is occurring in the world around you. So classes extending other classes end in a "tangled tree of bloat"? I'm not sure if this highlights your inability to design a class hierarchy properly, or your ignorance of the fact that your champion of virtue, C++, is also an Object Oriented language.
Horses for courses. C++ for times when runtime speed is of the essence, Java for times when a more robust, full featured PLATFORM is required.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought about some linux stuff once, just thought I'd warn you that you are all infringing my IP rights. The pricing structure for you to licence my IP is currently undecided, but I will be sure to offer /. users a discount; just because I'm a nice guy
That is true, very true. But the point I was trying to make is that Java is not slow. While not fast enough for situations where time is of the upmost importance (which for the majority of applications it is not; but not all of them) C/C++ is really the only option. I have just had it with people saying Java is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow when the reality dictates otherwise.
You idiot. I am sick of hearing people say how slow Java is, I've had enough. Look here (a repeat of benchmarking done 2 years ago found here) to find benchmarks showing some Java code (using jdk1.4.1) running faster then C++ code compiled with GCC. I'm not saying Java is faster then C++, what I am saying is that Java is not slow, the difference is small and getting smaller, and I think it speaks directly to the intellect of "malocchio" when he bases his opinions on what may have been the case SEVERAL years ago. But that's just me.
Spare a thought for those overworked nurses and doctors of our emergency rooms and hospitals.
I know not why this debate is still raging on. Not once but twice now have I presented you with logic and fact, and not once but twice now have you replied with the same, illogical, ill-informed opinion. I grow tired, but for some reason I feel compelled to reply.
"The Java native interface was never designed for speed. It is much slower interfacing external languages such as C or C++" I never said it was designed for speed. Of course it is slower then linking to it directly, however linking to it directly costs us platform independence, thus violating one of the major points of using Java (apart from the superior set of class libraries guaranteed to be available wherever the JVM is, a huge step over C/C++).
"If the Java virtual machine were written in C or C++ it would be extendable" you do not extend the Java Virtual Machine; it is the common ground you target. The fact that you state this signals to everyone that you do not fully understand the concepts and philosophies behind Java. Again, extending the JVM in custom ways would mean that these extensions would need to be applied to every JVM that is to run your program. Even then, it could only be run on the platform that you had provided a custom extension for. This is not the way of Java. The JVM is your target, you know what it is and what it provides, this is what frees developers from having to bloat their own applications with a library (of their own re-invented wheels) of helper bits and pieces to support their application. It also provides a common set of components that are tested and debugged (removing the need for the developer to do so, into the bargain, removing the cost).
"It would be difficult to implement an open source Java because the library is honking huge and there is no reference standard for Java." Java the language is a set of specifications, and there are open source implementations. In case you missed it in my last post http://www.kaffe.org is one that is shipped with virtually ever major linux distribution. You don't use Java and extend the JVM, doing so ruins much of what Java stands for. Sun gives you the JVM for virtually any platform you can possibly do any proper development for, and it does so for free. If you wish to extends the capabilities of the base classes, you can, you just extend them. I would like to see one good reason why you would want to extend the JVM.
"You can do anything in Python that you can in Java. You can also do more besides because you can extend Python with the native C code and change it to suit your needs" No, no you can't. I would like to see you write me a complex GUI that I can run on my Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac all with the same code. Please try to refrain from attempting to pass of completely false statements of opinion as fact; it does not help your creditability. Please give me a real situation where you would want to do what you say, and at the same time show how you could not achieve this in Java.
"Another site that criticizes Java is this: http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html"
I will quote directly from the above URL:
"I think Java is the best language going today"
"Java is far, far more pleasant to work with than C or C++ or Perl or Tcl/Tk or even Emacs-Lisp. When I first started using Java, it felt like an old friend: like finally I was back using a real object system, before the blights of C (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's a language) and C++ (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's an object system) took over the world."
Moving on; "Separating Java the language from Java the library is also important" Yes, this is true to an extent, however then you consider how pointless this is. Everywhere Java is, so is the base class library, it is there to be used, why would one ignore it?
"If you want to change APIs to APIs to APIs you have to change and deprecate the old APIs and maintain a huge library of old code as well as new code." As you will recall from my previous post, deprecation is a signal to
Horses for courses. I have a friend currently programming something in VB5, and while I loathe VB in all its forms, I do support the fact that for his given program, he can accomplish his goals far quicker and easier in VB, for his course, VB is the horse.
I never stated that speed doesn't matter, what I did say (and I will quote my own voice as it appears to be the only one of reason here) is that "when machines have reached a point where this sacrifice of the speed difference between Java and C++ becomes negligible". This is a point I will again state. For the vast majority (but not all) of circumstances, the speed gained by C++ is not necessary. However, when you consider that my C++ application written for windows my have large chunks of it rewritten if I desire to run it anywhere else; yet my same application written in Java required not a single line to be changed, it means that my Java application is FASTER to develop, therefore costing less, and that I speed less time in debugging (as I have one application to debug rather then virtually two), and therefore costs less again, I ask you, would you like to pay for my C++ one or my Java one?
.NET platform. Compilers exist to compile Java code to IL (which C# is compiled to), and Microsoft themselves have even released J#, giving people the ability to write code for the .NET platform using Java syntax. While we are on the topic of .NET and C# (which you seem to tout as being fine, where Java is the devils right hand man), what is it that makes the Java base class library (which provides developers with a stable, consistent platform to use, one
The end of your last reply listed some things that Sun has to worry about (such as small market shares for its servers etc...) yet this still poses the question. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENT? In your initial post you said that Sun only invented Java because it wanted to sell more Sun stuff! This is where I draw the line, and I will return to this in conjunction with my next point. You also state that Sun is afraid of open source??!?!?! Yet Jakarta Tomcat, the REFERCENCE implementation of the Java Servlets and JSP standards was GIVEN AWAY TO APACHE BY SUN! I think you'll agree that for a company so afraid of open source that was a pretty silly move.
I will quote you directly here: "there is no open source implementation of Java". This proves the point I made in the previous post regarding you having no authority to comment an ANYTHING related to Java at all (given you continually prove your knowledge of it is, at the very best, equal to the man on the streets knowledge of the social lives some obscure species; possibly that of the aging systems programmer with no ability to think into the future). It's called Kaffe mate, and it ships with virtually every major linux distribution available. Which brings me to my next quote: "Sun is afraid of JBoss and Linux and open source", Ok, firstly, how is sun afraid of JBoss? JBoss is (and this quote comes directly from their sourceforge page) an "Open Source, standards-compliant, J2EE based application server implemented in 100% Pure Java". So it is an application server, just like the may others (Weblogic, Webshpere, Oracle 9i and the list goes on), so what makes JBoss so special that Sun is so scared of it then? Answer me that. ALSO, Sun is scared of Linux? So it releases Java, the mantra of which (and I will quote you again) is "Platform independence". Yes, that makes sense, Sun is scared so they release something you can run on any platform (and provide a JVM the world, free of charge, with a JVM for many platforms, LINUX INCLUDED).
Let's move on to your next un-enlightened quote shall we. "You can't interface Java with C or C++. And you certainly can't mix or combine languages like you can in c#." Just as with your statement about there being no open-source implementation of Java, here, you are again COMPLETELY WRONG. The Java Native Interface (JNI) allows Java code to communicate with code written in C/C++. On top of that, you could use other standards such as CORBA to achieve this should you feel the need. The ability to mix and combine languages as you state is a feature of C# is indeed not a feature of C#, but is a feature of the
This is the first time I have posted at slash dot and I made the mistake of posting as HTML without including any
's I apologise if this makes my response difficult to read.
Your post really demonstrates absolutely that you are completely ill informed and unable to prepare any sort of real argument against Java for C++. I am sick and tired of people crying "Java is to slow" as this viewpoint just personifies the inability of people like yourself to think no further ahead then tomorrow. Firstly, the concession must be made that Java GUIs, particularly those with a great deal going on are slow and simply can not compete with their natively compiled competitors. That said, Java for any other purpose is NOT slow; yes, it is slower then C++, but that does not make it slow. If speed is the only thing C++ can claim over Java then that will prove to be a big problem for simpletons like yourself in two years when machines have reached a point where this sacrifice of the speed difference between Java and C++ becomes negligible. Java is aiming for something larger then speed (something that it seems ill informed people such as yourself simply can not grasp), simplicity, and I'm not just talking simple to program with. The effort required to create a new thread in C++, or to open a socket connection is quite frankly, unacceptable. The fact that the same thing can be achieved in Java in 3 lines or less of code proves my point. Try and port an application from Windows to *nix or back the other way, go on, try. I'll take my Java application and deliver it before you can even begin to comprehend the amount of work you are in for. "Whereas Java and C# are really niche languages that fail to succeed where C++ left off and improve on Native compilation or systems programming" This would have to have been my favourite quote from your comments. Java is a niche? I have news for you, give the wide breadth of projects out there in the REAL world (some place you obviously do not live) systems programming is the niece. Java can not compete with C++ for systems programming, as JAVA WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING!!!!! You say Java ships with bloated class libraries? Let's just ignore the fact that these *large* (not bloated) class libraries that ship with Java free developers for the hassle of organising numerous little third party libraries for their applications. Let's just ignore the fact it provides developers with a robust, COMMON platform on which to develop and target. The reason you perceive such tight coupling with the Java base class libraries and the language steams from the fact that Java is a platform, not just a language, and this is the one point that seems to elude the throngs of people such as yourself who believe themselves to posses more geek karma then anyone who could possibly even think of using a language where pointers are not allowed, and your simple minded opinions and utter gutter trash of arguments p*!# me off to no end. You state that System.out.println() is bloated, yet at the same time say that Console.WriteLine() is not. I am curious, apart from the 1 character (yes, that is correct, 1 character) difference in the two statements, what makes System.out.println() so bloated? In addition, System.out.printline() as you would have it is spelt incorrectly, and for you to make an amateur mistake such as this proves to me that you have no authority what so ever to comment on anything Java related at all. Further to that point, you have also provided incorrect casing for Console.WriteLine(), which suggests to me that your knowledge of the languages from which these two examples come is, at best, extremely sub par. "The enmity of OOP is class libraries that extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat" Firstly, enmity means ill-will or hatred, so are you trying to say the "hatred of class libraries the extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat"? I really hope you are, as that would prove you have a similar command of the English language as you have of what is occurring in the world around you. So classes extending other classes end in a "tangled tree of bloat"? I'm not sure if this highlights your inability to design a class hierarchy properly, or your ignorance of the fact that your champion of virtue, C++, is also an Object Oriented language. Horses for courses. C++ for times when runtime speed is of the essence, Java for times when a more robust, full featured PLATFORM is required.