A lot of people seem to be pointing out (Quite insistently, I might add) that it's silly to worry about cookies being left on a machine and how crazy the "Left" is to suggest such a thing.
The policy itself was from a memo written by the current government in 2003. That would be...hmm...let me check. Oh, yeah, the Bush administration.
So how is that the fault of the left?
Or is it your contention that nobody should be concerned when a branch of the government ignores policies that it finds silly? Or is it just policies that YOU find silly?
Once again it "prooves" the right has gone completely bonkers.
This could be really useful if the protocol was NOT BT.
It would make great sense to have a p2p protocol that sucked down the first part of the file first, allowing the user to stream straight into the browser.
BT has two attributes that make it a very poor choice for browser integration--the order of downloaded packets is random and BT should stay up long after the file has finished downloading--it's lifetime should not be bound by the lifetime of the browser.
Simply because a publication made a mistake, we don't have to simply roll over and take it.
Doesn't this look like a better definition?
"Podcasting is a term coined when the use of RSS and other syndication technologies became popular for distributing audio content for mobile devices. Today podcasting is a more generic term that is evolving as people understand what it means."
Perhaps you are using the wrong reference. Try wikipedia and stop looking at proprietary, slow to evolve treeware.
Oh, and by the way, I bet placing your quote here was against the law--mine wasn't.
I really don't get it. I use Java to create non-web based apps. Java isn't actually very good for web apps, which is fine.
Rails, as far as I can tell, is used to create web based apps only.
Why are people here constantly saying my hammer makes a better hammer than your wrench does?
I don't use Java to write webapps, I don't use ruby to write hotkey scripts that run in windows and I don't use AutoHotkey to write enterprise apps.
If you choose to use Java to write a webapp, stop bitching and learn how to actually engineer.
Also, if you use Ruby with a team of 40 people or more on the same million+ loc non-web project, I'd really like to hear about it. My lack of personal experience renders me unable to judge, but Ruby does not seem to be the perfect solution for that type of development (to me).
America is pretty damn close to being irrelevant anyway. If we re-ban crypto and these technologies, it will simply give some developing nation a new economy.
Yeah, lots of people point out how evolution couldn't have happened as well, oh, and don't forget that global warming is a prank! That's well proven my MANY researchers/scientists.
I really don't understand people who can't see how allowing the upper class (mostly corporate) to drain money from the middle and lower classes is the cause of a huge problem. Supplying them with higher limits on their credit cards doesn't help.
Or is it that you don't believe we have been doing so?
Here is a page with a handful of references at the bottom: http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm (Look through the time line and see if it doesn't remind you of recent events)
You can read any number of reports on both sides. The conservative faction has become fantastic at making up reasonable sounding bullshit (they learned by writing crap that allows religious extremest to believe that the bible is the actual word of God and not some collection put together by humans and churches grasping for power)
You can find explanations for any viewpoint, and if you like that viewpoint you are likely to believe whatever explanation you find that fits it. Use your own brain and try to figure out what happens:
When a company has a lot of money and buys out its competition. Does another company REALLY pop up to compete? NO because the big company buys it too.
When you move massive amounts of money to the upper class, does it filter back down? NO! There is not enough diversity in the buying habits of the rich.
How do we counter bad corporations? With our $ vote? Completely ineffective. YOU may be smart enough to not shop at Wall-Mart because of evil practices, but for every one of you there are a thousand that just don't have the information. I don't care why, it just doesn't work.
The only way to counter it is through government. You must continually re-balance the laws and taxes in order to keep the economy balanced. We have tried removing regulation (in the 20's, as I said).
IT DID NOT WORK.
I'm not even sure why I care. You can't change the mind of a religious fanatic, weather that religion is Christianity or Free Market. Sorry to bother you.
What is the advantage, to the general population, to allow stuff like this to happen? What was Segate missing in their product line that they absolutely had to have Maxtor to fill?
It's simply destroying a competitor to allow them to monopolize more of the market.
All this crap happened in the 20's. The US became extremely pro-business and anti-regulation, from the supreme court and president down.
This caused the depression. The depression removed the focus on the rich and corporate entities and returned much of the money they looted from the middle and lower classes, we had quite a few prosperous, happy decades.
Now we get to relearn our lesson I guess. Ready for the next depression? Probably only a decade or so out now?
Remember, we don't charter corporations so the shareholders can become rich and powerfully, that is a side-effect; we allow it because it's supposed to help everyone. When it stops helping the general economy and starts simply being self-serving, we need to re-evaluate the system and tweak it a little.
So I guess that's it. You are saying the same stuff that I hear from every inexperienced programmer. Without UML, how do you manage your multi-team design work? You don't. You haven't had that kind of serious problem or you wouldn't have trouble understanding why it's so critical.
Now, Java obviously doesn't fit your needs at all. It's like trying to use a wrench to drive a nail. In fact, you can't even understand the need unless you've worked on a group of over 20 people all on the same million line code base.
So why criticize Java because it doesn't fit your need? It fits mine, your tools don't--yours fit your needs, not mine.
Perhaps recognizing that different languages are appropriate for different project sets is another thing I didn't figure out until I had a decade of serious development experience under my belt, so I can't really blame you, but maybe you should take it into consideration next time.
I finally got a chance to look at some Ruby. Although I can see it being nice for scripting, almost everything I have seen about it so far makes it significantly worse than Java for my purposes.
Examples: Global Variables. WTF??? How can anyone even considering adding that to a language at this point?
Being able to leave parenthesies out. Why on earth would you give someone a choice about that? Every time you give the user an option, you have to make a decision on your team which way you will go. Consistancy is so nice.
Automatic variables. Hmm, Seems interesting if you are gaurenteed that you are using a really intelligent editor that can pull all variables to one place so you can see them, otherwise I prefer to have them declaired at the top of the class.
Also, I don't yet know if Ruby prevents it, but automatic variables make cases like:
Adding a method to a class so it works differently. WTF? Is it REALLY so hard to create a second class and have them both extend the same class? How the hell do you write the UML for such a monster? What do you do if you designed a class, passed it to a teammate, the teammate modifies the behavior and returns it to you and it crashes??? How on earth do you find something like that?
Is putting "foo $(bar)" REALLY so much easier than "foo"+bar ? and it ADDS SYNTAX! Any time you add syntax or options, you are hurting the language. Simplicity!
Another case where you are adding complicated, unnecessary syntax to the language when it should be a library function:
a = %w{ ant bee cat dog elk }
Why is that any easier or clearer than
a = createStrArry("ant bee cat dog elk")
Once you have created that method/utility you can reuse it all you want. And the method is trivial to create using stringTokenizer.
Over all, it looks like they are importing a lot of library features into the language, a very poor trend it sounds like. The language should be as clean as possible--a minimalistic definition.
I did find one thing I really liked. I think it was called "Packages" where you could add a kind of a minimal class and a few methods into another class. Kinda like interfaces on steriods. I can't see anything wrong with this at all, and I really hope they add it to Java.
The rest--well, it's a scripting language and not a large-group development language.. It's fine for what it does, but you can't compare it to Java--totally different monsters.
I agree with your thoughts, but I don't think your dream will be realized--but I expect a similar one will be.
What I think will happen is that tech-types will know how to block the ads and will start to do so, but 95% of the googleverse will start to notice them more and will click on them more and will spend more.
Google, having figured this out before-hand, will not make any attempt to prevent techs from blocking the graphics and may even give us an option to hide them.
This leaves us with yet another scenario where the technologically ignorant pay a tax for us techies, something that hasn't really started to bother me yet--and may never do so.
By the way, for a really interesting moment of zen, I spell checked this post with SpellBound and Googleverse (yeah, sorry about that, it sounded cool) spell corrected to overselling.
As far as I can tell, this is the net result of capitalism. Corporations CAN NOT ever be assumed to have any kind of a conscience. They may act in the state's best interest for limited periods, but in the long run public approval doesn't have a high enough $ value.
I would personally consider it a great time to start tweaking the system a little. Place a minimum holding period on stocks. Start at one year and move towards five... This will force stockholders (company owners) to be a little more responsible about the company they choose.
Second, I would make any interaction between corporations and government (be it donations, advice, etc) punishable by the immediate and permanent removal of the government official from all forms of government. That may sound extreme, but it's really not. We should be able to find millions willing to serve us instead of serving themselves, and those that get removed will certainly find great jobs in the private sector.
I know this sounds quite anti-America, and I suppose it is. It's anti-this piece of shit America we are headed into in the next 3 decades, and pro a more stable and happy America.
We have got to get away from this idea of worshiping greed! It's just wrong. Period. I've heard all the geeky explanations of how it is supposed to work in an ideal world and personal greed will solve all our problems. It works about as well as communism, both in theory (works great) and in reality (fails miserably).
Those aren't things I'm likely to want since I'm not writing some string processing script, I'm creating a multiuser client/server system for managing tens of thousands of fiber-optic gigabit set-top portals.
Chances are if you have the problems you listed you aren't coding right in the first place.
For instance, what does a capitalized string mean? Chances are it should have it's own type. The collection it is in (you do build your own collections as often as not, don't you?) Should probably have the ability to give you an iterator that only returns that type of string, so it is as easy as any other for each.
And your example of storing different types and converting them to strings? I have no idea what you're talking about--happens ALL THE TIME. That's why the.toString() was implemented, works on Object (so ANY object you place in the collection)
Now, if convert to string was just an example, I'd say again that you probably aren't programming very well, and this is exactly why Java is more readable.
If each object has the ability to be turned into some other object (say, a baseball), you should have a IToBaseball Interface that defines a method "Baseball getAsBaseball()" as you iterate through the collection, you can, check each item to see if it's an Instanceof IToBaseball, and if not, continue.
This is extremely clear as to your intention and takes just 2 lines of code. How do you suggest it be more concise.
You have pointed out what might be another reason people don't like Java-they don't know OO design. They don't recognize that you need to create interfaces for every way you want your object accessed, and you need to design your classes in such a way that they are fully factored.
THIS is the extra work I was talking about with java--the fact that you have to actually design and don't just start hacking.
This is also part of the reason that Java has a bad rep. It's syntax is so clean that "developers" often don't feel the need to design, or even know what they are doing.
This is why VB went south. Everyone thought that because they could code in VB they were software architects. They were really script kiddies. Same with Perl. The thing is, those languages are so limited that they are self-limiting in size, it's really tough to make a good, huge, VB app.
After you've done so and you understand the problems faces by such a large app, you re-evaluate your language and switch to one that allows you to do what is made for large-application development, such as Java.
BTW, seriously thinking about Ruby these days, need to add a scripting language to our application and if Ruby is half as good a scripting language as it sounds like, AND if I can find an implementation in Java, I'll have to give it a try.
public companies can do some great things. A few of them. For a while.
The problem is, it takes a lot of very dedicated people to counter the constant shareholder push towards optimizing profits and minimizing loss, and eventually those people lose and are replaced by people who will obey.
The only company that doesn't seem to fit are IBM. I have yet to figure out if they are a temporary fluke or if there is something about going all the way through suck and coming out the other side.
These are horrid, but luckily you aren't forced to do that at all. You can (And ALWAYS should) use something more clear like:
createMenus({"A","B","C"})
That requires you write a createMenues routine, but this isn't really a big deal.
Another example is like what they did with the for loop in Java. There was a pattern that you had to use when you iterated over a collection that was always identical and couldn't be factored down. Changing to the for each thing in 1.5 fixed that up AND made it more readable.
If that's the kind of optimizing you're talking about, it could be a good deal of improvement, but simply typing less is never a goal in itself.
I suppose that the existence of "Design Patterns" indicates that a language could be written better, but I can't see doing too much better than Java. Got an example?
It has a lot of classes available as library functions, but of course, if you don't use them they might as well not exist--java doesn't load them or anything unless you need them...
So are you complaining about a large number of free, well-written, well documented routines available for your use? That would be one of the strangest complaints I have ever heard, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
See, there is your problem, the definition of a powerful language.
A powerful language for me is one that can be highly factored and is still completely readable. It means that nothing is hidden and no function is less than obvious.
Most importantly, a programming language is a communication medium between human and human, not just human and computer.
How well do the languages you listed help you communicate with some arbitrary programmer that you have never met and do not get to explain anything to face-to-face. As you add multiple languages into the mix (AJAX, etc) you make this human to human communication even more difficult.
Forget the libraries and J2EE, These are the things that, for me, makes Java a good enterprise tool:
Automatic documentation generation with the code being the source! (This is one of the most important things ever done) Simple, clean, consistent code The ability to create clearly defined interfaces between sets of code (objects, in this case). OO! Deterministic--a GUI Editor always knows just what can be done with any given object at any time. Shies away from adding features--towards consistency. Garbage Collection (Not simply because it makes code more reliable, because it makes it MUCH more clean/factored. If you've never had to fight the design battle of who owns/gets to destroy an object used by multiple other objects, you pretty much either aren't a programmer or you've always used a language with GC.)
I guess it all comes down to Elegance in code. Being able to do a lot with one line of code or being able to type 50% fewer LOC to do your job has no place in programming today and is, in fact, counter-productive. If you are actually thinking faster than you type when you're programming, you need to think more, not type less! (If you honestly disagree with this, try APL, you'll love it)
If you think that J2EE/Libraries are a reason to switch, you are exactly the person I was talking about in my previous post... the power is in the Language, not these add-ons. The language features I listed are exactly what allowed these complicated, complete, reliable toolsets to be built in the first place.
People that pick Java for the toolsets/libraries are completely missing the point. They are probably also the same ones complaining on every Java article to hit/.
On one side you have a bunch of people who have never seen the kind of problems java solves so well.
These people for some reason think it's a horrible thing and must die. This has never made sense to me. I dislike a lot of crap that fits other people's needs and I don't really feel the need to rant against them at every opportunity. What kind of inadequacy drives this crap?
On the other side, you have a bunch of people who need it as is to get their daily jobs done. They are scratching their heads trying to understand why there is even a discussion going on.
If you are on a project with one developer and it's a web project, Java probably isn't for you. In fact, if you are on ANY project where you are the sole developer, don't bother unless you just like Java's syntax or you have worked in groups before and prefer the consistency and clear code that Java offers.
If you are writing a tiny app meant to run on a PC, dump java and write it in C/C++. The VM issues are kind of annoying that.
If you are writing a large client/server app, creating your own protocols, working with a group of 5-50 people, interested in long-term reusable clean code AND willing to spend the extra design time required to make such code, you might consider Java.
Honestly, I think most of the people complaining are trying to use "Java" to write some web app on their home computer and wondering why it's so hard. Like "Why does driving a backhoe have to be so much harder than riding my bicycle?!?!?" This is really for the hard jobs! If you don't have a hard job, if you are making a web app or something, Use your bicycle. PHP works fine.
Java makes a lot of the traditionally difficult issues much simpler, but these little apps typically don't even HAVE difficult issues, so yeah, Java may be a little cumbersome for them. Why did they even choose it in the first place.
My job became immensely easier and more fun by switching from C++ to Java. If you hate java, it may not be the tool for you! Backhoes are not great for tours around the lake, learn C++, VB, PHP, or whatever gets you off and enjoy. Just don't put down that funky looking, fuel guzzling backhoe unless you've tried digging a hole for a pool with your bicycle!
They went on for a while about the Wikipedia touting itself as an accurate source of information (words to that effect).
This is close--I don't think that the wikipedia really touts itself as the final say in anything. It's generally pretty honest.
The problem may be that it is so DAMN GOOD that most people come to think of it as THE defacto information source, and maybe the register deems that general consensus as something that the Wikipedia itself "believes" or is doing to mislead us.
Perhaps the Wikipedia needs to replace it's first screen with a giant "DON'T PANIC" followed by a smaller "This is almost completely inaccurate as it is created mostly by untrained humans. Any resemblance to actual facts is purely coincidental".
I think they have most of the disclaimers somewhere, but are really only missing the "Don't Panic"
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people seem to be pointing out (Quite insistently, I might add) that it's silly to worry about cookies being left on a machine and how crazy the "Left" is to suggest such a thing.
The policy itself was from a memo written by the current government in 2003. That would be...hmm...let me check. Oh, yeah, the Bush administration.
So how is that the fault of the left?
Or is it your contention that nobody should be concerned when a branch of the government ignores policies that it finds silly? Or is it just policies that YOU find silly?
Once again it "prooves" the right has gone completely bonkers.
This could be really useful if the protocol was NOT BT.
It would make great sense to have a p2p protocol that sucked down the first part of the file first, allowing the user to stream straight into the browser.
BT has two attributes that make it a very poor choice for browser integration--the order of downloaded packets is random and BT should stay up long after the file has finished downloading--it's lifetime should not be bound by the lifetime of the browser.
But good concept, but just not quite worth it.
Simply because a publication made a mistake, we don't have to simply roll over and take it.
Doesn't this look like a better definition?
"Podcasting is a term coined when the use of RSS and other syndication technologies became popular for distributing audio content for mobile devices. Today podcasting is a more generic term that is evolving as people understand what it means."
Perhaps you are using the wrong reference. Try wikipedia and stop looking at proprietary, slow to evolve treeware.
Oh, and by the way, I bet placing your quote here was against the law--mine wasn't.
The war is far from lost.
I really don't get it. I use Java to create non-web based apps. Java isn't actually very good for web apps, which is fine.
Rails, as far as I can tell, is used to create web based apps only.
Why are people here constantly saying my hammer makes a better hammer than your wrench does?
I don't use Java to write webapps, I don't use ruby to write hotkey scripts that run in windows and I don't use AutoHotkey to write enterprise apps.
If you choose to use Java to write a webapp, stop bitching and learn how to actually engineer.
Also, if you use Ruby with a team of 40 people or more on the same million+ loc non-web project, I'd really like to hear about it. My lack of personal experience renders me unable to judge, but Ruby does not seem to be the perfect solution for that type of development (to me).
I agree, but I think it actually IS the clean, consice, consistant language that makes it what it is.
Why do you think all those tools are written in Java?
America is pretty damn close to being irrelevant anyway. If we re-ban crypto and these technologies, it will simply give some developing nation a new economy.
Yeah, lots of people point out how evolution couldn't have happened as well, oh, and don't forget that global warming is a prank! That's well proven my MANY researchers/scientists.
I really don't understand people who can't see how allowing the upper class (mostly corporate) to drain money from the middle and lower classes is the cause of a huge problem. Supplying them with higher limits on their credit cards doesn't help.
Or is it that you don't believe we have been doing so?
Here is a page with a handful of references at the bottom:
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
(Look through the time line and see if it doesn't remind you of recent events)
You can read any number of reports on both sides. The conservative faction has become fantastic at making up reasonable sounding bullshit (they learned by writing crap that allows religious extremest to believe that the bible is the actual word of God and not some collection put together by humans and churches grasping for power)
You can find explanations for any viewpoint, and if you like that viewpoint you are likely to believe whatever explanation you find that fits it. Use your own brain and try to figure out what happens:
When a company has a lot of money and buys out its competition. Does another company REALLY pop up to compete? NO because the big company buys it too.
When you move massive amounts of money to the upper class, does it filter back down? NO! There is not enough diversity in the buying habits of the rich.
How do we counter bad corporations? With our $ vote? Completely ineffective. YOU may be smart enough to not shop at Wall-Mart because of evil practices, but for every one of you there are a thousand that just don't have the information. I don't care why, it just doesn't work.
The only way to counter it is through government. You must continually re-balance the laws and taxes in order to keep the economy balanced. We have tried removing regulation (in the 20's, as I said).
IT DID NOT WORK.
I'm not even sure why I care. You can't change the mind of a religious fanatic, weather that religion is Christianity or Free Market. Sorry to bother you.
All I meant to say was the ability to model was required. If you just sit down and pull stuff out of your ass, that's what you are going to get.
If you can't model a language, that's a problem. I really don't care what methodology you use. Which one are you claiming is more applicable for Ruby?
What is the advantage, to the general population, to allow stuff like this to happen? What was Segate missing in their product line that they absolutely had to have Maxtor to fill?
It's simply destroying a competitor to allow them to monopolize more of the market.
All this crap happened in the 20's. The US became extremely pro-business and anti-regulation, from the supreme court and president down.
This caused the depression. The depression removed the focus on the rich and corporate entities and returned much of the money they looted from the middle and lower classes, we had quite a few prosperous, happy decades.
Now we get to relearn our lesson I guess. Ready for the next depression? Probably only a decade or so out now?
Remember, we don't charter corporations so the shareholders can become rich and powerfully, that is a side-effect; we allow it because it's supposed to help everyone. When it stops helping the general economy and starts simply being self-serving, we need to re-evaluate the system and tweak it a little.
So I guess that's it. You are saying the same stuff that I hear from every inexperienced programmer. Without UML, how do you manage your multi-team design work? You don't. You haven't had that kind of serious problem or you wouldn't have trouble understanding why it's so critical.
Now, Java obviously doesn't fit your needs at all. It's like trying to use a wrench to drive a nail. In fact, you can't even understand the need unless you've worked on a group of over 20 people all on the same million line code base.
So why criticize Java because it doesn't fit your need? It fits mine, your tools don't--yours fit your needs, not mine.
Perhaps recognizing that different languages are appropriate for different project sets is another thing I didn't figure out until I had a decade of serious development experience under my belt, so I can't really blame you, but maybe you should take it into consideration next time.
I finally got a chance to look at some Ruby. Although I can see it being nice for scripting, almost everything I have seen about it so far makes it significantly worse than Java for my purposes.
Examples:
Global Variables. WTF??? How can anyone even considering adding that to a language at this point?
Being able to leave parenthesies out. Why on earth would you give someone a choice about that? Every time you give the user an option, you have to make a decision on your team which way you will go. Consistancy is so nice.
Automatic variables. Hmm, Seems interesting if you are gaurenteed that you are using a really intelligent editor that can pull all variables to one place so you can see them, otherwise I prefer to have them declaired at the top of the class.
Also, I don't yet know if Ruby prevents it, but automatic variables make cases like:
My_Cool_variable=5
My_Cool_variable=My_Cool_varaible+2
really hard to detect.
Adding a method to a class so it works differently. WTF? Is it REALLY so hard to create a second class and have them both extend the same class? How the hell do you write the UML for such a monster? What do you do if you designed a class, passed it to a teammate, the teammate modifies the behavior and returns it to you and it crashes??? How on earth do you find something like that?
Is putting "foo $(bar)" REALLY so much easier than "foo"+bar ? and it ADDS SYNTAX! Any time you add syntax or options, you are hurting the language. Simplicity!
Another case where you are adding complicated, unnecessary syntax to the language when it should be a library function:
a = %w{ ant bee cat dog elk }
Why is that any easier or clearer than
a = createStrArry("ant bee cat dog elk")
Once you have created that method/utility you can reuse it all you want. And the method is trivial to create using stringTokenizer.
Over all, it looks like they are importing a lot of library features into the language, a very poor trend it sounds like. The language should be as clean as possible--a minimalistic definition.
I did find one thing I really liked. I think it was called "Packages" where you could add a kind of a minimal class and a few methods into another class. Kinda like interfaces on steriods. I can't see anything wrong with this at all, and I really hope they add it to Java.
The rest--well, it's a scripting language and not a large-group development language.. It's fine for what it does, but you can't compare it to Java--totally different monsters.
I agree with your thoughts, but I don't think your dream will be realized--but I expect a similar one will be.
What I think will happen is that tech-types will know how to block the ads and will start to do so, but 95% of the googleverse will start to notice them more and will click on them more and will spend more.
Google, having figured this out before-hand, will not make any attempt to prevent techs from blocking the graphics and may even give us an option to hide them.
This leaves us with yet another scenario where the technologically ignorant pay a tax for us techies, something that hasn't really started to bother me yet--and may never do so.
By the way, for a really interesting moment of zen, I spell checked this post with SpellBound and Googleverse (yeah, sorry about that, it sounded cool) spell corrected to overselling.
As far as I can tell, this is the net result of capitalism. Corporations CAN NOT ever be assumed to have any kind of a conscience. They may act in the state's best interest for limited periods, but in the long run public approval doesn't have a high enough $ value.
I would personally consider it a great time to start tweaking the system a little. Place a minimum holding period on stocks. Start at one year and move towards five... This will force stockholders (company owners) to be a little more responsible about the company they choose.
Second, I would make any interaction between corporations and government (be it donations, advice, etc) punishable by the immediate and permanent removal of the government official from all forms of government. That may sound extreme, but it's really not. We should be able to find millions willing to serve us instead of serving themselves, and those that get removed will certainly find great jobs in the private sector.
I know this sounds quite anti-America, and I suppose it is. It's anti-this piece of shit America we are headed into in the next 3 decades, and pro a more stable and happy America.
We have got to get away from this idea of worshiping greed! It's just wrong. Period. I've heard all the geeky explanations of how it is supposed to work in an ideal world and personal greed will solve all our problems. It works about as well as communism, both in theory (works great) and in reality (fails miserably).
Those aren't things I'm likely to want since I'm not writing some string processing script, I'm creating a multiuser client/server system for managing tens of thousands of fiber-optic gigabit set-top portals.
.toString() was implemented, works on Object (so ANY object you place in the collection)
Chances are if you have the problems you listed you aren't coding right in the first place.
For instance, what does a capitalized string mean? Chances are it should have it's own type. The collection it is in (you do build your own collections as often as not, don't you?) Should probably have the ability to give you an iterator that only returns that type of string, so it is as easy as any other for each.
And your example of storing different types and converting them to strings? I have no idea what you're talking about--happens ALL THE TIME. That's why the
Now, if convert to string was just an example, I'd say again that you probably aren't programming very well, and this is exactly why Java is more readable.
If each object has the ability to be turned into some other object (say, a baseball), you should have a IToBaseball Interface that defines a method "Baseball getAsBaseball()" as you iterate through the collection, you can, check each item to see if it's an Instanceof IToBaseball, and if not, continue.
This is extremely clear as to your intention and takes just 2 lines of code. How do you suggest it be more concise.
You have pointed out what might be another reason people don't like Java-they don't know OO design. They don't recognize that you need to create interfaces for every way you want your object accessed, and you need to design your classes in such a way that they are fully factored.
THIS is the extra work I was talking about with java--the fact that you have to actually design and don't just start hacking.
This is also part of the reason that Java has a bad rep. It's syntax is so clean that "developers" often don't feel the need to design, or even know what they are doing.
This is why VB went south. Everyone thought that because they could code in VB they were software architects. They were really script kiddies. Same with Perl. The thing is, those languages are so limited that they are self-limiting in size, it's really tough to make a good, huge, VB app.
After you've done so and you understand the problems faces by such a large app, you re-evaluate your language and switch to one that allows you to do what is made for large-application development, such as Java.
BTW, seriously thinking about Ruby these days, need to add a scripting language to our application and if Ruby is half as good a scripting language as it sounds like, AND if I can find an implementation in Java, I'll have to give it a try.
public companies can do some great things. A few of them. For a while.
The problem is, it takes a lot of very dedicated people to counter the constant shareholder push towards optimizing profits and minimizing loss, and eventually those people lose and are replaced by people who will obey.
The only company that doesn't seem to fit are IBM. I have yet to figure out if they are a temporary fluke or if there is something about going all the way through suck and coming out the other side.
Because typically when Google makes a purchase, it is a brilliant idea... ... and when Yahoo makes a purchase, it is a horrible thing.
Brevity is not in any way relevant, but your point may be valid...
The worst thing a language can do is force you to repeat yourself. For instance, pages of:
MenuItem mi=new MenuItem("A");
MenuItem mi=new MenuItem("B");
MenuItem mi=new MenuItem("C");
These are horrid, but luckily you aren't forced to do that at all. You can (And ALWAYS should) use something more clear like:
createMenus({"A","B","C"})
That requires you write a createMenues routine, but this isn't really a big deal.
Another example is like what they did with the for loop in Java. There was a pattern that you had to use when you iterated over a collection that was always identical and couldn't be factored down. Changing to the for each thing in 1.5 fixed that up AND made it more readable.
If that's the kind of optimizing you're talking about, it could be a good deal of improvement, but simply typing less is never a goal in itself.
I suppose that the existence of "Design Patterns" indicates that a language could be written better, but I can't see doing too much better than Java. Got an example?
I suggest you give it a try and check back in 5 minutes and see if it changed the error rate--or anything at all.
Interesting comment. What is a "Bloated API?"
It has a lot of classes available as library functions, but of course, if you don't use them they might as well not exist--java doesn't load them or anything unless you need them...
So are you complaining about a large number of free, well-written, well documented routines available for your use? That would be one of the strangest complaints I have ever heard, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Or were you talking about something else?
See, there is your problem, the definition of a powerful language.
/.
A powerful language for me is one that can be highly factored and is still completely readable. It means that nothing is hidden and no function is less than obvious.
Most importantly, a programming language is a communication medium between human and human, not just human and computer.
How well do the languages you listed help you communicate with some arbitrary programmer that you have never met and do not get to explain anything to face-to-face. As you add multiple languages into the mix (AJAX, etc) you make this human to human communication even more difficult.
Forget the libraries and J2EE, These are the things that, for me, makes Java a good enterprise tool:
Automatic documentation generation with the code being the source!
(This is one of the most important things ever done)
Simple, clean, consistent code
The ability to create clearly defined interfaces between sets of code (objects, in this case).
OO!
Deterministic--a GUI Editor always knows just what can be done with any given object at any time.
Shies away from adding features--towards consistency.
Garbage Collection
(Not simply because it makes code more reliable, because it makes it MUCH more clean/factored. If you've never had to fight the design battle of who owns/gets to destroy an object used by multiple other objects, you pretty much either aren't a programmer or you've always used a language with GC.)
I guess it all comes down to Elegance in code. Being able to do a lot with one line of code or being able to type 50% fewer LOC to do your job has no place in programming today and is, in fact, counter-productive. If you are actually thinking faster than you type when you're programming, you need to think more, not type less! (If you honestly disagree with this, try APL, you'll love it)
If you think that J2EE/Libraries are a reason to switch, you are exactly the person I was talking about in my previous post... the power is in the Language, not these add-ons. The language features I listed are exactly what allowed these complicated, complete, reliable toolsets to be built in the first place.
People that pick Java for the toolsets/libraries are completely missing the point. They are probably also the same ones complaining on every Java article to hit
These discussions always get me.
On one side you have a bunch of people who have never seen the kind of problems java solves so well.
These people for some reason think it's a horrible thing and must die. This has never made sense to me. I dislike a lot of crap that fits other people's needs and I don't really feel the need to rant against them at every opportunity. What kind of inadequacy drives this crap?
On the other side, you have a bunch of people who need it as is to get their daily jobs done. They are scratching their heads trying to understand why there is even a discussion going on.
If you are on a project with one developer and it's a web project, Java probably isn't for you. In fact, if you are on ANY project where you are the sole developer, don't bother unless you just like Java's syntax or you have worked in groups before and prefer the consistency and clear code that Java offers.
If you are writing a tiny app meant to run on a PC, dump java and write it in C/C++. The VM issues are kind of annoying that.
If you are writing a large client/server app, creating your own protocols, working with a group of 5-50 people, interested in long-term reusable clean code AND willing to spend the extra design time required to make such code, you might consider Java.
Honestly, I think most of the people complaining are trying to use "Java" to write some web app on their home computer and wondering why it's so hard. Like "Why does driving a backhoe have to be so much harder than riding my bicycle?!?!?" This is really for the hard jobs! If you don't have a hard job, if you are making a web app or something, Use your bicycle. PHP works fine.
Java makes a lot of the traditionally difficult issues much simpler, but these little apps typically don't even HAVE difficult issues, so yeah, Java may be a little cumbersome for them. Why did they even choose it in the first place.
My job became immensely easier and more fun by switching from C++ to Java. If you hate java, it may not be the tool for you! Backhoes are not great for tours around the lake, learn C++, VB, PHP, or whatever gets you off and enjoy. Just don't put down that funky looking, fuel guzzling backhoe unless you've tried digging a hole for a pool with your bicycle!
> For Linus to get involved in this is just wrong.
I disagree. Everyone has an opinion, for us to put more weight on his opinion than anyone elses--that's wrong.
He's just human, well, except for the pissing lightning thing, but that doesn't make his opinion any better--just his aim.
> Since when did operating systems become a religion?
Although often treated that way, they are truly an art, and one that developers, quite contrary to their beliefs, tend to be particularly inept at.
They went on for a while about the Wikipedia touting itself as an accurate source of information (words to that effect).
This is close--I don't think that the wikipedia really touts itself as the final say in anything. It's generally pretty honest.
The problem may be that it is so DAMN GOOD that most people come to think of it as THE defacto information source, and maybe the register deems that general consensus as something that the Wikipedia itself "believes" or is doing to mislead us.
Perhaps the Wikipedia needs to replace it's first screen with a giant "DON'T PANIC" followed by a smaller "This is almost completely inaccurate as it is created mostly by untrained humans. Any resemblance to actual facts is purely coincidental".
I think they have most of the disclaimers somewhere, but are really only missing the "Don't Panic"
If you are going to stress about every source of trash polluting the earth, you are in for a short, extremely stressful life.
The world is gonners, sit back and enjoy the ride.