You can't even compare the two. Linux with KDE or GNOME is, no offense to those projects, barely a 9 year old child's bicycle with training wheels, while OSX is a Harley.
Well, I was actually listening, curiously, until I saw the Hardley, I mean, Harley reference. LOL. That's pretty funny. You do realize that from a technology perspective, Harley is one of the biggest POS on the road? Compared to modern ICE technology in most bikes, Harleys squarely fit as the biggest, most unreliable POS around. The fact that they sale nearly as well as they do, wonderfully underlines the intelligence of the majority of the population. It sales because it's popular, cool, and US made, not because it's better. Personally, IMO, Harley is an internatinal joke when you compare to what else in on the market. Bluntly, Harley is a great excuse for the rest of the world of sneer at "dumb Americans."
Bluntly, Harley has a long history, in modern times, of being the best loser at any track. Even off the track, Harleys run like crap, and leak oil like it's a new fad. Only in the last couple of years, has Harely actually managed to progress from 1920's based technology to ~1940 based technology. Beyond that, the ONLY serious technological inspiration being injected into Harley comes from their Buell purchase. At least Buell can actually finish a race.
I'm sorry, but comparing OSX to Harley is akin to smearing a large quantity of fecal material on your computer and smuggly thinking you've done something good.
Long story short, Harley, even after the infusion of the excellent company, Buell, still is on the bottom of the list, if not dead last, when looking at motocycle goodness. The big-four rice-bikes, happily laugh at Harley all day long; and that's just for starters.
C++ was and is an inappropriate language for most large-scale software development, unlike Java.
I've heard this a lot, but it has never been true on any large project I've worked on. In fact, I think C++ is inappropriate for small projects, because the required planning and design. I personally find it's too easy to screwup a small project with C++. To make a small project work well, you have to plan and design too much, thusly, making a small project larger than it should be. Likewise, a well planned and designed project, has always worked well for me and my projects. I should offer, in both of my small and large projects above, multiple people are still involved.
Java, as the first somewhat sane replacement for C++, won over plenty of converts easily.
Again, I completley disagree here. Java found adopters, IMO, from people that thought C++ was too hard. Therefore, it found takers from wanna-be C++ guys. Granted, I'm sure some qualified guys dropped C++ for java, but from my own experience, the number is very small. Accordingly, I witnessed MANY VB migrants. In fact, I find it hard to shake a stick in a room full of Java guys, that didn't start as a V programmer.
In a world of 512+ MB RAM, 2+ GHz processor desktops (and single-tasking humans), Java is a perfectly suitable desktop development language, especially when coupled with SWT.
Well, that greatly depends on the nature of the application. Beyond that, it also assumes that few to no other applications are run at the same time. I'm also assuming an OS like XP is in place. If you have to run more than one non-trivial Java app on your desktop, with 512MB RAM, on XP, you're probably going to be unhappy. Especially if that user expects to keep running something like Outlook and maybe an IM client in the background too.
Hopefully Java 1.5 will greatly help the multiple application footprint problem. Make no mistake about it, it's a significant problem, begging for a solution. Hopefully it's now a problem of the past.:)
Opps. I just realized that we changed people here. Sorry.
His position is, that Java should also be a requisite. That's insane. He also assumed that we're talking about games. For whatever reason, I can't fathom. At any rate, if I have a scripting language embedded into my project, let's say, python, why would I then want to require yet another language. I wind up with a C++ project, which uses python for scripting and Java for speech. That's insane and bluntly, stupid. If I wanted Java to be a requisite of my project, I would of used Java as my embedded scripting language. Worse, I now have to pay the cost of two VM's (java & python), plus the C++ runtime. That makes a fat application a pig. Like I said, only an idiot would suggest that this is an ideal solution.
On the other hand, if it had been implemented in C or C++, as I suggested would be more ideal, we could make use of it as both a library and/or atomic process. Best of all, I would only require a single vm (python), and would not impose additional CPU and memory overhead, beyond what is actually required. AND, people in just about every language could then use it as a library, without imposing addition overhead or mandating the use of a VM, which is a pig (Java). In otherwords, as I originally stated, it would of been a win for everyone. Instead, I got hooked by a Java zealot that thinks Java is ideal for every project on earth. It's not. I don't have a problem with people using Java. Just stop being so defensive and come back to planet Earth. Like it or not, Java has lots of baggage, is generally slower than well crafted C or C++ (and that's given a mediocre optimizing compiler like g++).
Pointing people to bogus benchmark after bogus benchmark and then insisting that Java is fast, only further invalidates Java in other developer's eyes. Stop it. The reality of it is, Java is NOT a good general purpose tool and it's not ideal for many situations. The fact that you can do projects like this in Java, is admittedly impressive, but that hardly means that Java was an ideal pick for this project. When it's trivial to come with an arm's length list of reasons why a language is a poor choice for x-project, guess what, it's probably a poor choice. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to do the project with such a choice, it just means it's not a good choice. I can put screws into wood with a hammer, but that doesn't mean I should be doing it. I can, but that hardly validates a hammer as a good screw driver.
Based on your unrealistic position and assertion that I must disprove the impossible, it seems the flames are a fitting response.
Based on your unrealistic and unreasonable position, I can't see that there is a need to continue to the thread. Your position indicates that logic, reason, and especially facts are ignored because they offend your holy grail of Java sensibilities.
I'm sorry, but offended or not, Java is not the be-all, end-all of programming languages. Java is not ideal for every project. Period. Frankly, I'm not aware of any language which is ideal for every project. Java comes with some seriously heavy baggage. Period. When people complain about the baggage, be forthcoming and simply say, "yep", versus the impossible possition of trying to deny reality.
Java *is* fast, if you don't count the slow parts.
Nail. Head. You.
You better run before the Java zealots start trying to hunt you down. According to their 3 second tests, Java is faster in every case. Please don't be bothered with facts that they tested absolete ideal corner cases for JIT and that they used horrible C/C++ code for comparison. Please ignore the fact that they don't care about GC, which effects real applications, or the huge memory foot print which is required. Happily ignore the fact that you can suprisingly exhaust the JVM of memory, at times you would never expect to do so.
Every study that I've read are based on piss-poor C/C++ code or corner cases which never represent real world code.
Every Java application I've run, and I mean EVERY application, feels like I'm being punished. Simple fact is, Java has a reputation for being slow because in the real world, for most everyone that has had to, or currently has to use Java, it actually is slow.
It's not that people are hung up in the past. It's that in daily, real world use, Java reaffirms that it's slow(er) than modern C/C++ applications, which people are used to using.
Sure, in a test suite, which painfully ignores things like gc, and goes out of it's way to write ideal Java code, and crappy C/C++ code, Java looks great. But in reality, the world doesn't spin like that.
Java 1.5 might be a big step if changing and improving Java, from both a developer and user's experience, but until then, there is a huge disconnection between what the Java zealots sing and the real world.
Depends on the code and because jgc (IIR the name correctly), doesn't currently optimize very well at all. Generally, last I heard, the generated code is often much slower than the JAVA JVM instance and much slower than a C-port.
Well said. I'm amazed at the level of frustration that originates from the Java zealot camp, when they insist the world is flat. Which, completely ignores the fact that every picture from orbit shows it to be blue and green, and spherical in shape.
Sure, for their little, unrealistic benchmark, Java does make the world look flat, but it ignores every other fact of the world. It ignores that the small patch of land their looking at, isn't the whole world.
It has a lot do with C, in fact. I had the "pleasure" to modify the original Sphinx2 engine, it was written in quite old C in very messy style, pointers pointing everywhere. Really ugly stuff. Java doesn't make it so easy to make such mess.
Bad code is bad code. Period. No language protects you from bad code. Until you face this fact, you're simply blowing smoke. You can write ugly code in Java, just as you can in Python, C, C++, Perl, php, and the list goes on. You can hide your head from reality all you want, but the rest of us are still here.
Dare to give some solid numbers ?
Wow, you drugs must be really good. You claim that all java code is bug free and then challenge ME to PROVE otherwise. When you come down from your pipe smoking high, please both to show even one study that hints at supporting your absolute BS that you're trying to push. Simple fact is, Java does not make coding bug free. Period. End of story. You even try to debate it, you immediately establish your self as an absolute idiot. Period.
Nonsense. Why many games use embedded scripting engines ? Perl, Python, Guille, Lisp even Java (!!!) are used in this way, because the to code high-level algorithms (think AI) in C/C++ is pain. It just makes sense and people do not have problems with embedding VMs. Almost all recent games include some kind of scripting language (and VM).
Wow. You really do function in an altered state of reality. Are you this out of touch or do I really need to explain to you why the above comments make you sound like an idiot?
And again, you obviously do not know what are you talking about - Sphinx is intended as background (server) task, not a library.
Yet again you highlight your poor logistical skills. Why would anyone want to make a pig ofa Java application a requirement for their application? It doesn't matter one bit that it's a library or an atomic process.
I think you've been sniffing Java glue too often.
And speed is really not an issue, you should test/profile it before you make over-general statements about something having to be slow just because it is Java (or Lisp or whatever high-level language).
Wow. You missed again. It's not a matter of profiling. It's a reasonable gimme. Java implementation is going to be slower than a C or C++ implementation. That's what I said. A better question s, why wouldn't you want the slimmest, fastest means of accomplishing a goal, which is traditionally both CPU and memory hungry. That's right, in other words, Java certainly would not be a first pick for any reasonable person looking for the best tool for a job. Not here, anyways.
If you need it for what it was intended for, Java is completely irrelevant
LOL! LOL....lol....Java is completely irrelevent? LOL. That's pretty funny. Sure, why would bloating and application and requiring more CPU not be irrelevant. Oh, that's right, because ignoring common sense makes Java look more appealing. I'm sorry, I lost my self for a second.
The advantage of writing it in Java are simply larger than saving 10MB of memory used
I would be amazed if the numbers were truly that small. More than likely, it's a difference of something like 20M, just for starters. Even still, 10M, even in today's environment, isn't exactly something that I'd be in a hurry to toss away. But that's right, fatter is better than fat, in your opinion, so I can see why you don't care. Which, explains you're die hard devotion to Java. Go figure.
If you tried to measure and familiarize yourself with technology you are bashing first, then the "illogical" position would be perfectly understandable. That is also common sense.
I have. That's why is common sense that you're argument is 100% illogical.
Hello, did actually any of you Java bashers actually try the Sphinx4 engine ?
I've not tried it out, but I plan to. I'm curious about it.
Actually a lot better (faster and more accurate) than the older Sphinx2 engine which was written in *gasp* C!
Which probably has zero to do with its speed. But, I will get back to why being java is dumb.
It is pain in the butt to do it even in Java, but at least you do not have the pointer mess you would have in C/C++. The engine has a good performance already, I am not sure what you would gain by rewriting it, except of bugs (the older Sphinx2 was for sure buggy as hell).
You don't make any sense at all. Writing something in Java does not make it bug free. We know for a fact that Java is bloated and generally slow(er) when compared to well writen C or C++ code. You climbed a pole and left a note to be sure we cut the pole down.
The biggest reason to write it in C (ideally) or C++ is so that it can actually be used. No one wants to have to use a JVM in their C, C++, Pascal, Python, Perl, etc., project to use this code. In effect, they greatly reduced the value of this package to world by coding it in Java. If they had coded it in C++ or especially C, just about every language, including Java, would benefit. Not to mention, performance would probably be better and there is little doubt, the memory footprint would be much, much, much smaller.
Something about the memory footprint. Java can have a large memory footprint, however with speech recognition, you will always have it. Just the accoustic models for one language can be easily in the order of several hundreds of megabytes. Memory footprint of Java is completely irrelevant here.
I see, so fat people should go out of their way to make themselves fatter. After all, they are already fat. That makes no sense at all.
So next time, before you start spouting BS about Java and applications written in it, at least check the facts. People will not see you as a complete idiot.
Well, I don't know about all that, but the simple facts and common sense seem to be pushing you hard, from your seemingly illogical position.
If you look the posts, the conversation actually talked about gays having children from hetero relationships. Most studies indicate that this happens because of social pressure. If homo-life style became the norm, the number of children in this situation would be greatly reduced because the social pressure to "force" a homo into a hetero relationship would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the 50% statistic you spouted is nowhere near realistic. Chances are, your 50% would be more like 5-10%. Again, this assumes significant changes in acceptible social norms.
Thankfully, I think and read for my self, so I don't listen to dribble that comes from a druggie like Rush. Oddly enough, while you seem to dislike Rush, dribble that is 180' off from his, seems to be all I see coming from you.
The crime rate for domestic distrubances are higher, specifically for male-male relationships. I believe I also remember reading that average same-sex relationship averaged less in duration, again, specifically for male-male relationships. That combination of statistics doesn't seem to fair well for a stable family environment. I don't know what the statistics look like, as a whole, for all gay-relationships.
Would you like to provide an ancient historical reference to Marriage that pre-dates Genesis?
I didn't even finish reading your comment because it's sad. Believe it or not, this has NOTHING to do with god. Period. Period. Period.
People believing that marriage is a divine right, certainly has a right to believe it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a contractual arrangement between two people, regardless of religious beliefs. Period.
What a straw-man argument. Planned and unplanned births happen ALL the time in herto unions. This will never happen for same sex marriages. And when birth does happen, statistically, a child from a healthy family structure does much, much, much better than one that does not.
At least we're talking about something other than the, "look how small minded I am, this has to do with god", straw man.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you check, these situations are happening more and more. They even happen here in the states.
That would absolutely be, "NO!" That's because I'm talking about relationships and not marriage.
And following that, we must have the Futurama quote:
Professor: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
Fry: Oh. What's it called now?
Professor: Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you.
You can't even compare the two. Linux with KDE or GNOME is, no offense to those projects, barely a 9 year old child's bicycle with training wheels, while OSX is a Harley.
Well, I was actually listening, curiously, until I saw the Hardley, I mean, Harley reference. LOL. That's pretty funny. You do realize that from a technology perspective, Harley is one of the biggest POS on the road? Compared to modern ICE technology in most bikes, Harleys squarely fit as the biggest, most unreliable POS around. The fact that they sale nearly as well as they do, wonderfully underlines the intelligence of the majority of the population. It sales because it's popular, cool, and US made, not because it's better. Personally, IMO, Harley is an internatinal joke when you compare to what else in on the market. Bluntly, Harley is a great excuse for the rest of the world of sneer at "dumb Americans."
Bluntly, Harley has a long history, in modern times, of being the best loser at any track. Even off the track, Harleys run like crap, and leak oil like it's a new fad. Only in the last couple of years, has Harely actually managed to progress from 1920's based technology to ~1940 based technology. Beyond that, the ONLY serious technological inspiration being injected into Harley comes from their Buell purchase. At least Buell can actually finish a race.
I'm sorry, but comparing OSX to Harley is akin to smearing a large quantity of fecal material on your computer and smuggly thinking you've done something good.
Long story short, Harley, even after the infusion of the excellent company, Buell, still is on the bottom of the list, if not dead last, when looking at motocycle goodness. The big-four rice-bikes, happily laugh at Harley all day long; and that's just for starters.
I have to disagree with most of your statements.
:)
C++ was and is an inappropriate language for most large-scale software development, unlike Java.
I've heard this a lot, but it has never been true on any large project I've worked on. In fact, I think C++ is inappropriate for small projects, because the required planning and design. I personally find it's too easy to screwup a small project with C++. To make a small project work well, you have to plan and design too much, thusly, making a small project larger than it should be. Likewise, a well planned and designed project, has always worked well for me and my projects. I should offer, in both of my small and large projects above, multiple people are still involved.
Java, as the first somewhat sane replacement for C++, won over plenty of converts easily.
Again, I completley disagree here. Java found adopters, IMO, from people that thought C++ was too hard. Therefore, it found takers from wanna-be C++ guys. Granted, I'm sure some qualified guys dropped C++ for java, but from my own experience, the number is very small. Accordingly, I witnessed MANY VB migrants. In fact, I find it hard to shake a stick in a room full of Java guys, that didn't start as a V programmer.
In a world of 512+ MB RAM, 2+ GHz processor desktops (and single-tasking humans), Java is a perfectly suitable desktop development language, especially when coupled with SWT.
Well, that greatly depends on the nature of the application. Beyond that, it also assumes that few to no other applications are run at the same time. I'm also assuming an OS like XP is in place. If you have to run more than one non-trivial Java app on your desktop, with 512MB RAM, on XP, you're probably going to be unhappy. Especially if that user expects to keep running something like Outlook and maybe an IM client in the background too.
Hopefully Java 1.5 will greatly help the multiple application footprint problem. Make no mistake about it, it's a significant problem, begging for a solution. Hopefully it's now a problem of the past.
Great reply.
I agree with everything you said.
Cheers!
Opps. I just realized that we changed people here. Sorry.
His position is, that Java should also be a requisite. That's insane. He also assumed that we're talking about games. For whatever reason, I can't fathom. At any rate, if I have a scripting language embedded into my project, let's say, python, why would I then want to require yet another language. I wind up with a C++ project, which uses python for scripting and Java for speech. That's insane and bluntly, stupid. If I wanted Java to be a requisite of my project, I would of used Java as my embedded scripting language. Worse, I now have to pay the cost of two VM's (java & python), plus the C++ runtime. That makes a fat application a pig. Like I said, only an idiot would suggest that this is an ideal solution.
On the other hand, if it had been implemented in C or C++, as I suggested would be more ideal, we could make use of it as both a library and/or atomic process. Best of all, I would only require a single vm (python), and would not impose additional CPU and memory overhead, beyond what is actually required. AND, people in just about every language could then use it as a library, without imposing addition overhead or mandating the use of a VM, which is a pig (Java). In otherwords, as I originally stated, it would of been a win for everyone. Instead, I got hooked by a Java zealot that thinks Java is ideal for every project on earth. It's not. I don't have a problem with people using Java. Just stop being so defensive and come back to planet Earth. Like it or not, Java has lots of baggage, is generally slower than well crafted C or C++ (and that's given a mediocre optimizing compiler like g++).
Pointing people to bogus benchmark after bogus benchmark and then insisting that Java is fast, only further invalidates Java in other developer's eyes. Stop it. The reality of it is, Java is NOT a good general purpose tool and it's not ideal for many situations. The fact that you can do projects like this in Java, is admittedly impressive, but that hardly means that Java was an ideal pick for this project. When it's trivial to come with an arm's length list of reasons why a language is a poor choice for x-project, guess what, it's probably a poor choice. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to do the project with such a choice, it just means it's not a good choice. I can put screws into wood with a hammer, but that doesn't mean I should be doing it. I can, but that hardly validates a hammer as a good screw driver.
Based on your unrealistic position and assertion that I must disprove the impossible, it seems the flames are a fitting response.
Based on your unrealistic and unreasonable position, I can't see that there is a need to continue to the thread. Your position indicates that logic, reason, and especially facts are ignored because they offend your holy grail of Java sensibilities.
I'm sorry, but offended or not, Java is not the be-all, end-all of programming languages. Java is not ideal for every project. Period. Frankly, I'm not aware of any language which is ideal for every project. Java comes with some seriously heavy baggage. Period. When people complain about the baggage, be forthcoming and simply say, "yep", versus the impossible possition of trying to deny reality.
Java *is* fast, if you don't count the slow parts.
;)
Nail. Head. You.
You better run before the Java zealots start trying to hunt you down. According to their 3 second tests, Java is faster in every case. Please don't be bothered with facts that they tested absolete ideal corner cases for JIT and that they used horrible C/C++ code for comparison. Please ignore the fact that they don't care about GC, which effects real applications, or the huge memory foot print which is required. Happily ignore the fact that you can suprisingly exhaust the JVM of memory, at times you would never expect to do so.
Shesh. Just stay quiet and run.
Every study that I've read are based on piss-poor C/C++ code or corner cases which never represent real world code.
Every Java application I've run, and I mean EVERY application, feels like I'm being punished. Simple fact is, Java has a reputation for being slow because in the real world, for most everyone that has had to, or currently has to use Java, it actually is slow.
It's not that people are hung up in the past. It's that in daily, real world use, Java reaffirms that it's slow(er) than modern C/C++ applications, which people are used to using.
Sure, in a test suite, which painfully ignores things like gc, and goes out of it's way to write ideal Java code, and crappy C/C++ code, Java looks great. But in reality, the world doesn't spin like that.
Java 1.5 might be a big step if changing and improving Java, from both a developer and user's experience, but until then, there is a huge disconnection between what the Java zealots sing and the real world.
Depends on the code and because jgc (IIR the name correctly), doesn't currently optimize very well at all. Generally, last I heard, the generated code is often much slower than the JAVA JVM instance and much slower than a C-port.
Well said. I'm amazed at the level of frustration that originates from the Java zealot camp, when they insist the world is flat. Which, completely ignores the fact that every picture from orbit shows it to be blue and green, and spherical in shape.
Sure, for their little, unrealistic benchmark, Java does make the world look flat, but it ignores every other fact of the world. It ignores that the small patch of land their looking at, isn't the whole world.
It has a lot do with C, in fact. I had the "pleasure" to modify the original Sphinx2 engine, it was written in quite old C in very messy style, pointers pointing everywhere. Really ugly stuff. Java doesn't make it so easy to make such mess.
Bad code is bad code. Period. No language protects you from bad code. Until you face this fact, you're simply blowing smoke. You can write ugly code in Java, just as you can in Python, C, C++, Perl, php, and the list goes on. You can hide your head from reality all you want, but the rest of us are still here.
Dare to give some solid numbers ?
Wow, you drugs must be really good. You claim that all java code is bug free and then challenge ME to PROVE otherwise. When you come down from your pipe smoking high, please both to show even one study that hints at supporting your absolute BS that you're trying to push. Simple fact is, Java does not make coding bug free. Period. End of story. You even try to debate it, you immediately establish your self as an absolute idiot. Period.
Nonsense. Why many games use embedded scripting engines ? Perl, Python, Guille, Lisp even Java (!!!) are used in this way, because the to code high-level algorithms (think AI) in C/C++ is pain. It just makes sense and people do not have problems with embedding VMs. Almost all recent games include some kind of scripting language (and VM).
Wow. You really do function in an altered state of reality. Are you this out of touch or do I really need to explain to you why the above comments make you sound like an idiot?
And again, you obviously do not know what are you talking about - Sphinx is intended as background (server) task, not a library.
Yet again you highlight your poor logistical skills. Why would anyone want to make a pig ofa Java application a requirement for their application? It doesn't matter one bit that it's a library or an atomic process.
I think you've been sniffing Java glue too often.
And speed is really not an issue, you should test/profile it before you make over-general statements about something having to be slow just because it is Java (or Lisp or whatever high-level language).
Wow. You missed again. It's not a matter of profiling. It's a reasonable gimme. Java implementation is going to be slower than a C or C++ implementation. That's what I said. A better question s, why wouldn't you want the slimmest, fastest means of accomplishing a goal, which is traditionally both CPU and memory hungry. That's right, in other words, Java certainly would not be a first pick for any reasonable person looking for the best tool for a job. Not here, anyways.
If you need it for what it was intended for, Java is completely irrelevant
LOL! LOL....lol....Java is completely irrelevent? LOL. That's pretty funny. Sure, why would bloating and application and requiring more CPU not be irrelevant. Oh, that's right, because ignoring common sense makes Java look more appealing. I'm sorry, I lost my self for a second.
The advantage of writing it in Java are simply larger than saving 10MB of memory used
I would be amazed if the numbers were truly that small. More than likely, it's a difference of something like 20M, just for starters. Even still, 10M, even in today's environment, isn't exactly something that I'd be in a hurry to toss away. But that's right, fatter is better than fat, in your opinion, so I can see why you don't care. Which, explains you're die hard devotion to Java. Go figure.
If you tried to measure and familiarize yourself with technology you are bashing first, then the "illogical" position would be perfectly understandable. That is also common sense.
I have. That's why is common sense that you're argument is 100% illogical.
LOL.
Funny stuff though...
Every year the Java naysayers get more and more frustrated and more desperate to find a reason that Java just won't do.
LOL! Ya, how dare a programmer want to use the best tool for the job. what a horrible haysayer we are.
I can put screws into wood with a hammer, but it doesn't mean questioning that practice is a bad idea.
Sounds like you have too much invested in Java to look at the greater picture.
Hello, did actually any of you Java bashers actually try the Sphinx4 engine ?
I've not tried it out, but I plan to. I'm curious about it.
Actually a lot better (faster and more accurate) than the older Sphinx2 engine which was written in *gasp* C!
Which probably has zero to do with its speed. But, I will get back to why being java is dumb.
It is pain in the butt to do it even in Java, but at least you do not have the pointer mess you would have in C/C++. The engine has a good performance already, I am not sure what you would gain by rewriting it, except of bugs (the older Sphinx2 was for sure buggy as hell).
You don't make any sense at all. Writing something in Java does not make it bug free. We know for a fact that Java is bloated and generally slow(er) when compared to well writen C or C++ code. You climbed a pole and left a note to be sure we cut the pole down.
The biggest reason to write it in C (ideally) or C++ is so that it can actually be used. No one wants to have to use a JVM in their C, C++, Pascal, Python, Perl, etc., project to use this code. In effect, they greatly reduced the value of this package to world by coding it in Java. If they had coded it in C++ or especially C, just about every language, including Java, would benefit. Not to mention, performance would probably be better and there is little doubt, the memory footprint would be much, much, much smaller.
Something about the memory footprint. Java can have a large memory footprint, however with speech recognition, you will always have it. Just the accoustic models for one language can be easily in the order of several hundreds of megabytes. Memory footprint of Java is completely irrelevant here.
I see, so fat people should go out of their way to make themselves fatter. After all, they are already fat. That makes no sense at all.
So next time, before you start spouting BS about Java and applications written in it, at least check the facts. People will not see you as a complete idiot.
Well, I don't know about all that, but the simple facts and common sense seem to be pushing you hard, from your seemingly illogical position.
LOL!
But at least I'm right.
What a moron.
Rolling eyes. I guess this is where it ends. I guess we know which one of us is reasonable.
Enjoy.
Hehe.
:P
In my face!
If you look the posts, the conversation actually talked about gays having children from hetero relationships. Most studies indicate that this happens because of social pressure. If homo-life style became the norm, the number of children in this situation would be greatly reduced because the social pressure to "force" a homo into a hetero relationship would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the 50% statistic you spouted is nowhere near realistic. Chances are, your 50% would be more like 5-10%. Again, this assumes significant changes in acceptible social norms.
Thankfully, I think and read for my self, so I don't listen to dribble that comes from a druggie like Rush. Oddly enough, while you seem to dislike Rush, dribble that is 180' off from his, seems to be all I see coming from you.
If gay marriage and "gay-dom" in general were part of "normal" society, such situations would become a tiny, minority.
The crime rate for domestic distrubances are higher, specifically for male-male relationships. I believe I also remember reading that average same-sex relationship averaged less in duration, again, specifically for male-male relationships. That combination of statistics doesn't seem to fair well for a stable family environment. I don't know what the statistics look like, as a whole, for all gay-relationships.
The crime rate statistics completely disagree with you.
Would you like to provide an ancient historical reference to Marriage that pre-dates Genesis?
I didn't even finish reading your comment because it's sad. Believe it or not, this has NOTHING to do with god. Period. Period. Period.
People believing that marriage is a divine right, certainly has a right to believe it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a contractual arrangement between two people, regardless of religious beliefs. Period.
The link with marriage is indirect.
Not at all. The link is direct and conclussive. Healthy families stand a much greater chance of producing healthy, productive citizens.
What a straw-man argument. Planned and unplanned births happen ALL the time in herto unions. This will never happen for same sex marriages. And when birth does happen, statistically, a child from a healthy family structure does much, much, much better than one that does not.
;)
At least we're talking about something other than the, "look how small minded I am, this has to do with god", straw man.