Possibly because it offers nothing worth considering. Its syntax is a weak rip-off of C++ (which is in itself horrible), and its alleged "feature" (being platform-agnostic) is, when you really think about it, completely useless. For a console application (including server daemons), you won't want that for performance reasons. For a front-end, you won't want that because UIs are platform-specific for a reason. If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
There is nothing Java can offer you that a clean separation between a platform-agnostic (but compiled!) framework/back-end, written in an efficient language (e.g. plain C) and a set of platform-specific (and not necessarily compiled; interpreted can be good enough) front-ends, written in high-level APIs (e.g. Cocoa, .NET) can't give you.
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource, as they promised to over time, and then drew back again. Meanwhile .net has been overtaking it. I don't agree with your characterization. And I know any number of programmers who prefer it. For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
What? User interface isn't the only thing that matters in an OS. How about maintainability? Security? Stability? With my experience, the Java UI elements match the look of its host operating system pretty well. As for the operation, it is up to the developer to make it a sensible system. Programs like RSSOwl and Eclipse show that Java can be used very well for operation, and the fact that they are Java based aren't apparent to the user, they behave like native programs.
Those are all things that have been converging. Most kernels, be it XNU, Linux, OpenSolaris or NT, have been more than robust/stable enough for years. Likewise, most operating systems have been maintainable and secure enough (yes, including Windows; XP's problems have quite little to do with the general security features).
Quote:
With my experience, the Java UI elements match the look of its host operating system pretty well.
You've got to be joking. I can spot a Java app from 10 feet away. Neither on OS X nor on Windows does a Java app look, feel or behave natively. Don't even bother giving me an example to the contrary, because there are none.
If you want to write a good app, write it in a native UI. Otherwise, I'll give you thumbs down for not respecting your users.
Quote:
Programs like RSSOwl and Eclipse show that Java can be used very well for operation, and the fact that they are Java based aren't apparent to the user, they behave like native programs.
So tell me, why are those not popular on Mac OS X? Could it be because they aren't well-behaved Mac apps?
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource,
That's part of it. I don't think it's a significant part, however.
.NET has gained traction not only because Microsoft is behind it, but because it also happens to be really good. You get an excellent API worthy of being compared to Cocoa, you get the ability to write in whatever language you prefer (theoretically possible in Cocoa, e.g. through PyObjC, but practically not implemented well), and you get Bytecode-like treatment.
Quote:
For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
I just don't see anything in Java that's compelling. In its OOP concepts, it isn't ahead of Cocoa, and it's far, far behind of Ruby, aka "Everything is an object". In its language syntax, it is virtually equivalent to C++, aka "Teh Uglay". Its bytecode paradigm is interesting but ultimately not very useful.
Possibly because it offers nothing worth considering. Its syntax is a weak rip-off of C++ (which is in itself horrible)
Syntax doesn't make a language. C++ is not quite fish nor fowl. Java and C# are high level languages with better productivity than either C or C++.
Quote:
, and its alleged "feature" (being platform-agnostic) is, when you really think about it, completely useless. For a console application (including server daemons), you won't want that for performance reasons.
Which is why the j2ee stack is a complete failure with no one using it.
Quote:
For a front-end, you won't want that because UIs are platform-specific for a reason. If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
There is nothing Java can offer you that a clean separation between a platform-agnostic (but compiled!) framework/back-end, written in an efficient language (e.g. plain C) and a set of platform-specific (and not necessarily compiled; interpreted can be good enough) front-ends, written in high-level APIs (e.g. Cocoa, .NET) can't give you.
Because those of us who have done cross-platform development understand that "platform agnostic" C or C++ is an oxymoron and still annoying to code relative to Java or C# and while Java doesn't quite live up to code once and run everywhere it sure comes a lot closer.
That said, I prefer C#. Java still has some annoyances that really shouldn't exist after all this time.
Vinea
PS I forgot to note that native look and feel is supposedly to be addressed in 1.6.
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource, as they promised to over time, and then drew back again. Meanwhile .net has been overtaking it. I don't agree with your characterization. And I know any number of programmers who prefer it. For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
Java's biggest problem is that it sucked until 1.2 (arguably 1.3). For the better part of a decade devs were drowning in the Java kool-aid. .Net works amazingly well for a MS framework unlike the MFC and win32 environments. .Net sucked a lot less coming out of the gate and got reasonably stable by 1.1.
Making Java opensource would simply have allowed MS to extend the language in incompatible ways. The biggest problem of Java wasn't it not being opensource but they usual unix suspects shooting themselves in their collective feet. There was no reason to fork IDEs so we had both Eclipse and NetBeans, neither of which are IMHO has good as Visual Studio.
I mean really, if not being opensource didn't hamper .Net why should any dev care that Java isn't opensource. Its not like you couldn't look at the source if you wanted to.
Syntax is the main aspect that makes a language. Modern languages aren't compared as much by their features, which are very similar anyway, but by their syntax, which isn't.
Quote:
Java and C# are high level languages with better productivity than either C or C++.
C and C# have a use. Java and C++ don't.
Quote:
PS I forgot to note that native look and feel is supposedly to be addressed in 1.6.
I just don't see anything in Java that's compelling.
What's compelling is its a cross platform language that finally doesn't suck and meets most of the marketing hype of 1996. Of course, now that its a decade old it fails the sexiness test.
While Ruby is just as old it is hot today becuase it wasn't hyped in the 90s. Still Java strikes me as more mature.
Syntax is the main aspect that makes a language. Modern languages aren't compared as much by their features, which are very similar anyway, but by their syntax, which isn't.
The difference between C, C++, Java and C# syntax are minimal enough that anyone that can read one can read any other. Differences in language features and philosophy results in folks effectively coding C in higher level langages.
Also the libraries differ greatly (i.e. built in features).
If you think syntax is the primary difference, what can I say except all semi-competent coders can learn any of the C derived syntax very rapidly.
Quote:
C and C# have a use. Java and C++ don't.
Nice to be a zealot. Keeps things nice and black and white where you don't need to think anymore. Every language that you can draw pay writing has a use. Heck I'm sure there are still MUMPS devs out there.
The difference between C, C++, Java and C# syntax are minimal enough that anyone that can read one can read any other.
Yes, but see, the premise several posts ago was that Java was this great new thing that developers have been too lazy to catch on to. I don't believe it is.
Quote:
Differences in language features and philosophy results in folks effectively coding C in higher level langages.
I'll stick to my idea that plain C is good for high-performance code and Ruby, .NET (with virtually any language, including obscure stuff like Boo) and Cocoa (with Objective-C) are good for high-level code. There is virtually nothing that can't be done with this combination. So, what niche does Java fill again? Or is it one of those cases where it tries to be many things but doesn't really stand out on any in particular?
Quote:
Also the libraries differ greatly (i.e. built in features).
You mean like glibc? That's not really language-specific. OS X has quite a different libc, for instance.
Quote:
If you think syntax is the primary difference, what can I say except all semi-competent coders can learn any of the C derived syntax very rapidly.
Precisely. Except I don't find Java's syntax compelling. Ruby's I do. Objective C's I do (though it's very confusing at first). Java's? Nah.
Quote:
Nice to be a zealot. Keeps things nice and black and white where you don't need to think anymore. Every language that you can draw pay writing has a use. Heck I'm sure there are still MUMPS devs out there.
Many languages have a niche. Perhaps asinine cellphone games are the "niche" for Java. On a PC/desktop/server/workstation/laptop/Mac/etc., however, I don't see a use.
Nope doesn't suck. Just like CORBA doesn't suck anymore.
Neither are silver bullets. Both are finally mature enough to go into mission critical apps.
Quote:
More mature and probably faster, but much less interesting as an emerging technology.
Because of Rails? Eh, Ajax is "emerging technology". Who the heck gives a crap about yet another C like language with Smalltalk like OO? Ruby is over a decade old. Creating new languages is passe.
"Emerging technology" is a synonym to "Technology that is overhyped and still sucks." Doesn't mean I won't learn them but its pretty much been there, bled a lot, have the coffee mug, thanks.
Yes, but see, the premise several posts ago was that Java was this great new thing that developers have been too lazy to catch on to. I don't believe it is.
It is and it isn't. The rate of adoption from new technology to widely used is a decade. I can find a study that shows that if you like.
Quote:
I'll stick to my idea that plain C is good for high-performance code and Ruby, .NET (with virtually any language, including obscure stuff like Boo) and Cocoa (with Objective-C) are good for high-level code.
.NET is windows specific. Cocoa is Mac specific.
Quote:
There is virtually nothing that can't be done with this combination. So, what niche does Java fill again? Or is it one of those cases where it tries to be many things but doesn't really stand out on any in particular?
J2EE excels in the enterprise stack environment. The language and syntax itself is less important that the api and application stack around it.
Quote:
You mean like glibc? That's not really language-specific. OS X has quite a different libc, for instance.
No, I mean the infrastructure around a language. For example C# as a language is not overly useful seperated from the functionality of the .NET stack. Learning to be a good C# programmer has very little to do with syntax and a whole lot more with understanding what is in .NET.
No, its not language specific and that's the point. The language itself and syntax are almost noise in the equation.
Quote:
Precisely. Except I don't find Java's syntax compelling. Ruby's I do. Objective C's I do (though it's very confusing at first). Java's? Nah.
If you want to judge a book by its cover who am I to argue?
Quote:
Many languages have a niche. Perhaps asinine cellphone games are the "niche" for Java. On a PC/desktop/server/workstation/laptop/Mac/etc., however, I don't see a use.
Yes, this is because you are a zealot. Just like mac zealots or Linux zealots that cant see any use for Windows.
It is and it isn't. The rate of adoption from new technology to widely used is a decade. I can find a study that shows that if you like.
So what kind of technology makes Java unique?
Quote:
.NET is windows specific. Cocoa is Mac specific.
.NET isn't Windows-specific (and Cocoa isn't technically Mac-specific). But even if they were both platform-specific, I'd be quite happy with that.
Quote:
No, I mean the infrastructure around a language. For example C# as a language is not overly useful seperated from the functionality of the .NET stack. Learning to be a good C# programmer has very little to do with syntax and a whole lot more with understanding what is in .NET.
But that's the beauty of .NET. You pick a syntax that you like, and then you learn the .NET framework.
No, because, for instance, of higher order messaging.
In Smalltalk first (or perhaps Objective C) I think and can be implemented in most dynamically typed OO languages. "Emerging"? Eh, I bet Knuth would disagree and find something its been called before.
You can also implement the pattern in java but since its statically typed its messier and not as elegant. Likewise C++.
Wha-what now? You speak of innovation and then mention "when the PC is dead", Java, and architecture-agnostic (read: low-quality) software?
Peh.
That's why I say Java will be limited to low-performance software. In twenty years, I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that most high performance software is going to be written in a new language that resembles VHDL or Verilog more than anything else. But Java still has its pluses, namely that it's fast to write and portable. For certain things, this is valuable. Plus, ARM chips with Jazelle can decode Java Byte Code in hardware.
Other than that, I'm with you. I hate Java for 95% of the things it's used for.
That's why I say Java will be limited to low-performance software. In twenty years, I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that most high performance software is going to be written in a new language that resembles VHDL or Verilog more than anything else.
In 20 years the next language will have more levels of abstraction and not less. Eh, I just don't see moving to Verilog or VHDL...if you're going to go to that much trouble for "high performance" then burn the ASIC or load the FPGA.
"Low performance" software is replacing what traditionally was done by RT software because system performance is "fast enough".
J2EE excels in the enterprise stack environment. The language and syntax itself is less important that the api and application stack around it.
Y'all "wasted" an entire forum page on arguing about Java. I've extracted the 2 points from vinea that's relevant. The Windows world will use .NET primarily. J2EE seems to do well in middleware. Cocoa written in Xcode IDE is the best tool for creating quality Universal Mac software.
Where does that leave Java? As Melgross said back a bit, embedded stuff and mobile phones. I will add, for the end user, Java applets (which used to suck real bad about 5 years ago but seem much better now).
For OS 10.4 and 10.5 any up-to-date Java support is good for plug-in in web browsers and some applications if you really need to use it. In the Mac world, Cocoa in Xcode-IDE out to Universal, native, beautiful-Mac-UI applications is the obvious choice.
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
Possibly because it offers nothing worth considering. Its syntax is a weak rip-off of C++ (which is in itself horrible), and its alleged "feature" (being platform-agnostic) is, when you really think about it, completely useless. For a console application (including server daemons), you won't want that for performance reasons. For a front-end, you won't want that because UIs are platform-specific for a reason. If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
There is nothing Java can offer you that a clean separation between a platform-agnostic (but compiled!) framework/back-end, written in an efficient language (e.g. plain C) and a set of platform-specific (and not necessarily compiled; interpreted can be good enough) front-ends, written in high-level APIs (e.g. Cocoa, .NET) can't give you.
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource, as they promised to over time, and then drew back again. Meanwhile .net has been overtaking it. I don't agree with your characterization. And I know any number of programmers who prefer it. For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
Originally posted by Chucker
If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
What? User interface isn't the only thing that matters in an OS. How about maintainability? Security? Stability? With my experience, the Java UI elements match the look of its host operating system pretty well. As for the operation, it is up to the developer to make it a sensible system. Programs like RSSOwl and Eclipse show that Java can be used very well for operation, and the fact that they are Java based aren't apparent to the user, they behave like native programs.
Originally posted by JeffDM
How about maintainability? Security? Stability?
Those are all things that have been converging. Most kernels, be it XNU, Linux, OpenSolaris or NT, have been more than robust/stable enough for years. Likewise, most operating systems have been maintainable and secure enough (yes, including Windows; XP's problems have quite little to do with the general security features).
With my experience, the Java UI elements match the look of its host operating system pretty well.
You've got to be joking. I can spot a Java app from 10 feet away. Neither on OS X nor on Windows does a Java app look, feel or behave natively. Don't even bother giving me an example to the contrary, because there are none.
If you want to write a good app, write it in a native UI. Otherwise, I'll give you thumbs down for not respecting your users.
Programs like RSSOwl and Eclipse show that Java can be used very well for operation, and the fact that they are Java based aren't apparent to the user, they behave like native programs.
So tell me, why are those not popular on Mac OS X? Could it be because they aren't well-behaved Mac apps?
Originally posted by melgross
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource,
That's part of it. I don't think it's a significant part, however.
.NET has gained traction not only because Microsoft is behind it, but because it also happens to be really good. You get an excellent API worthy of being compared to Cocoa, you get the ability to write in whatever language you prefer (theoretically possible in Cocoa, e.g. through PyObjC, but practically not implemented well), and you get Bytecode-like treatment.
For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
I just don't see anything in Java that's compelling. In its OOP concepts, it isn't ahead of Cocoa, and it's far, far behind of Ruby, aka "Everything is an object". In its language syntax, it is virtually equivalent to C++, aka "Teh Uglay". Its bytecode paradigm is interesting but ultimately not very useful.
Originally posted by Chucker
Possibly because it offers nothing worth considering. Its syntax is a weak rip-off of C++ (which is in itself horrible)
Syntax doesn't make a language. C++ is not quite fish nor fowl. Java and C# are high level languages with better productivity than either C or C++.
, and its alleged "feature" (being platform-agnostic) is, when you really think about it, completely useless. For a console application (including server daemons), you won't want that for performance reasons.
Which is why the j2ee stack is a complete failure with no one using it.
For a front-end, you won't want that because UIs are platform-specific for a reason. If every OS had the same UI, what would be the deciding factor of one OS over another? Exactly.
There is nothing Java can offer you that a clean separation between a platform-agnostic (but compiled!) framework/back-end, written in an efficient language (e.g. plain C) and a set of platform-specific (and not necessarily compiled; interpreted can be good enough) front-ends, written in high-level APIs (e.g. Cocoa, .NET) can't give you.
Because those of us who have done cross-platform development understand that "platform agnostic" C or C++ is an oxymoron and still annoying to code relative to Java or C# and while Java doesn't quite live up to code once and run everywhere it sure comes a lot closer.
That said, I prefer C#. Java still has some annoyances that really shouldn't exist after all this time.
Vinea
PS I forgot to note that native look and feel is supposedly to be addressed in 1.6.
Originally posted by melgross
Actually, mostly because of Sun's failure to allow it to go opensource, as they promised to over time, and then drew back again. Meanwhile .net has been overtaking it. I don't agree with your characterization. And I know any number of programmers who prefer it. For years it had been gathering developers, but, in the end, it was Suns decisions that has held it back.
Java's biggest problem is that it sucked until 1.2 (arguably 1.3). For the better part of a decade devs were drowning in the Java kool-aid. .Net works amazingly well for a MS framework unlike the MFC and win32 environments. .Net sucked a lot less coming out of the gate and got reasonably stable by 1.1.
Making Java opensource would simply have allowed MS to extend the language in incompatible ways. The biggest problem of Java wasn't it not being opensource but they usual unix suspects shooting themselves in their collective feet. There was no reason to fork IDEs so we had both Eclipse and NetBeans, neither of which are IMHO has good as Visual Studio.
I mean really, if not being opensource didn't hamper .Net why should any dev care that Java isn't opensource. Its not like you couldn't look at the source if you wanted to.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Syntax doesn't make a language.
Syntax is the main aspect that makes a language. Modern languages aren't compared as much by their features, which are very similar anyway, but by their syntax, which isn't.
Java and C# are high level languages with better productivity than either C or C++.
C and C# have a use. Java and C++ don't.
PS I forgot to note that native look and feel is supposedly to be addressed in 1.6.
Yeah, and GNU/HURD is coming next year.
Originally posted by Chucker
I just don't see anything in Java that's compelling.
What's compelling is its a cross platform language that finally doesn't suck and meets most of the marketing hype of 1996. Of course, now that its a decade old it fails the sexiness test.
While Ruby is just as old it is hot today becuase it wasn't hyped in the 90s. Still Java strikes me as more mature.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
What's compelling is its a cross platform language that finally doesn't suck
Doesn't suck? Java? Bwahaha.
While Ruby is just as old it is hot today becuase it wasn't hyped in the 90s. Still Java strikes me as more mature.
More mature and probably faster, but much less interesting as an emerging technology.
Originally posted by Chucker
Syntax is the main aspect that makes a language. Modern languages aren't compared as much by their features, which are very similar anyway, but by their syntax, which isn't.
The difference between C, C++, Java and C# syntax are minimal enough that anyone that can read one can read any other. Differences in language features and philosophy results in folks effectively coding C in higher level langages.
Also the libraries differ greatly (i.e. built in features).
If you think syntax is the primary difference, what can I say except all semi-competent coders can learn any of the C derived syntax very rapidly.
C and C# have a use. Java and C++ don't.
Nice to be a zealot. Keeps things nice and black and white where you don't need to think anymore. Every language that you can draw pay writing has a use. Heck I'm sure there are still MUMPS devs out there.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
The difference between C, C++, Java and C# syntax are minimal enough that anyone that can read one can read any other.
Yes, but see, the premise several posts ago was that Java was this great new thing that developers have been too lazy to catch on to. I don't believe it is.
Differences in language features and philosophy results in folks effectively coding C in higher level langages.
I'll stick to my idea that plain C is good for high-performance code and Ruby, .NET (with virtually any language, including obscure stuff like Boo) and Cocoa (with Objective-C) are good for high-level code. There is virtually nothing that can't be done with this combination. So, what niche does Java fill again? Or is it one of those cases where it tries to be many things but doesn't really stand out on any in particular?
Also the libraries differ greatly (i.e. built in features).
You mean like glibc? That's not really language-specific. OS X has quite a different libc, for instance.
If you think syntax is the primary difference, what can I say except all semi-competent coders can learn any of the C derived syntax very rapidly.
Precisely. Except I don't find Java's syntax compelling. Ruby's I do. Objective C's I do (though it's very confusing at first). Java's? Nah.
Nice to be a zealot. Keeps things nice and black and white where you don't need to think anymore. Every language that you can draw pay writing has a use. Heck I'm sure there are still MUMPS devs out there.
Many languages have a niche. Perhaps asinine cellphone games are the "niche" for Java. On a PC/desktop/server/workstation/laptop/Mac/etc., however, I don't see a use.
Originally posted by Chucker
Doesn't suck? Java? Bwahaha.
Nope doesn't suck. Just like CORBA doesn't suck anymore.
Neither are silver bullets. Both are finally mature enough to go into mission critical apps.
More mature and probably faster, but much less interesting as an emerging technology.
Because of Rails? Eh, Ajax is "emerging technology". Who the heck gives a crap about yet another C like language with Smalltalk like OO? Ruby is over a decade old. Creating new languages is passe.
"Emerging technology" is a synonym to "Technology that is overhyped and still sucks." Doesn't mean I won't learn them but its pretty much been there, bled a lot, have the coffee mug, thanks.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Because of Rails?
No, because, for instance, of higher order messaging.
Originally posted by Chucker
Yes, but see, the premise several posts ago was that Java was this great new thing that developers have been too lazy to catch on to. I don't believe it is.
It is and it isn't. The rate of adoption from new technology to widely used is a decade. I can find a study that shows that if you like.
I'll stick to my idea that plain C is good for high-performance code and Ruby, .NET (with virtually any language, including obscure stuff like Boo) and Cocoa (with Objective-C) are good for high-level code.
.NET is windows specific. Cocoa is Mac specific.
There is virtually nothing that can't be done with this combination. So, what niche does Java fill again? Or is it one of those cases where it tries to be many things but doesn't really stand out on any in particular?
J2EE excels in the enterprise stack environment. The language and syntax itself is less important that the api and application stack around it.
You mean like glibc? That's not really language-specific. OS X has quite a different libc, for instance.
No, I mean the infrastructure around a language. For example C# as a language is not overly useful seperated from the functionality of the .NET stack. Learning to be a good C# programmer has very little to do with syntax and a whole lot more with understanding what is in .NET.
No, its not language specific and that's the point. The language itself and syntax are almost noise in the equation.
Precisely. Except I don't find Java's syntax compelling. Ruby's I do. Objective C's I do (though it's very confusing at first). Java's? Nah.
If you want to judge a book by its cover who am I to argue?
Many languages have a niche. Perhaps asinine cellphone games are the "niche" for Java. On a PC/desktop/server/workstation/laptop/Mac/etc., however, I don't see a use.
Yes, this is because you are a zealot. Just like mac zealots or Linux zealots that cant see any use for Windows.
Doesn't make you any less blind or foolish.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
It is and it isn't. The rate of adoption from new technology to widely used is a decade. I can find a study that shows that if you like.
So what kind of technology makes Java unique?
.NET is windows specific. Cocoa is Mac specific.
.NET isn't Windows-specific (and Cocoa isn't technically Mac-specific). But even if they were both platform-specific, I'd be quite happy with that.
No, I mean the infrastructure around a language. For example C# as a language is not overly useful seperated from the functionality of the .NET stack. Learning to be a good C# programmer has very little to do with syntax and a whole lot more with understanding what is in .NET.
But that's the beauty of .NET. You pick a syntax that you like, and then you learn the .NET framework.
Originally posted by Chucker
No, because, for instance, of higher order messaging.
In Smalltalk first (or perhaps Objective C) I think and can be implemented in most dynamically typed OO languages. "Emerging"? Eh, I bet Knuth would disagree and find something its been called before.
You can also implement the pattern in java but since its statically typed its messier and not as elegant. Likewise C++.
Vinea
Originally posted by Chucker
Wha-what now? You speak of innovation and then mention "when the PC is dead", Java, and architecture-agnostic (read: low-quality) software?
Peh.
That's why I say Java will be limited to low-performance software. In twenty years, I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that most high performance software is going to be written in a new language that resembles VHDL or Verilog more than anything else. But Java still has its pluses, namely that it's fast to write and portable. For certain things, this is valuable. Plus, ARM chips with Jazelle can decode Java Byte Code in hardware.
Other than that, I'm with you. I hate Java for 95% of the things it's used for.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's why I say Java will be limited to low-performance software.
But if performance isn't relevant, then why even bother with Bytecode? Why not use an interpreted language, be it Boo, Ruby, Python, whatever?
But Java still has its pluses, namely that it's fast to write and portable.
Ruby is extremely fast to write and portable. So, that can't be Java's strength either.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's why I say Java will be limited to low-performance software. In twenty years, I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that most high performance software is going to be written in a new language that resembles VHDL or Verilog more than anything else.
In 20 years the next language will have more levels of abstraction and not less. Eh, I just don't see moving to Verilog or VHDL...if you're going to go to that much trouble for "high performance" then burn the ASIC or load the FPGA.
"Low performance" software is replacing what traditionally was done by RT software because system performance is "fast enough".
Vinea
1.
.NET is windows specific. Cocoa is Mac specific.
2.
J2EE excels in the enterprise stack environment. The language and syntax itself is less important that the api and application stack around it.
Y'all "wasted" an entire forum page on arguing about Java.
Where does that leave Java? As Melgross said back a bit, embedded stuff and mobile phones. I will add, for the end user, Java applets (which used to suck real bad about 5 years ago but seem much better now).
For OS 10.4 and 10.5 any up-to-date Java support is good for plug-in in web browsers and some applications if you really need to use it. In the Mac world, Cocoa in Xcode-IDE out to Universal, native, beautiful-Mac-UI applications is the obvious choice.