Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #21601 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-22 06:41 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-27 23:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
The Revenge of the Geeks Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> - 2013-01-22 06:41 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2013-01-22 14:55 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-22 22:29 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> - 2013-01-22 06:58 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks joel garry <joel-garry@home.com> - 2013-01-22 08:54 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-23 00:07 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 17:02 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-22 22:23 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 21:30 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-22 22:26 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-24 00:51 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-23 20:01 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-24 01:10 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-23 20:20 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-24 12:15 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-01-24 07:37 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-01-24 12:55 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-24 14:40 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-01-24 10:01 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 10:24 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 10:35 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 10:56 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2013-01-30 23:54 +0100
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-22 22:32 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-01-22 21:33 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 00:21 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-23 05:25 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 04:35 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-23 20:17 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 22:47 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-24 06:03 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 04:44 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 11:10 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-01-24 10:49 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 11:06 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 16:10 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 17:30 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 17:44 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 17:49 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 17:58 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 21:10 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 22:15 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 22:31 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 23:57 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-25 22:05 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-25 23:31 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-26 07:25 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 12:40 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-26 21:34 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 22:06 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 09:12 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 14:47 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 16:23 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 15:24 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-26 21:47 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 22:11 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 22:54 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-27 07:46 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 12:47 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-27 19:40 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 21:16 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-29 22:05 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 03:22 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-30 20:12 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 02:22 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-01 20:12 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-02-04 14:09 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-04 18:28 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-05 01:57 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-02-05 09:55 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-27 19:37 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-01-27 10:38 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 13:09 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-27 19:47 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-27 19:45 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-26 07:26 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 13:22 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-26 12:57 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 16:15 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 22:04 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 00:38 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-27 19:35 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 21:04 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 16:34 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 17:04 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-26 22:14 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 01:38 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-01-27 13:13 +0000
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-27 13:59 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 22:17 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 23:06 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-26 00:31 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:42 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 23:22 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-25 00:03 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-25 02:41 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:31 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 11:30 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-23 20:13 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-24 15:31 -0400
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-24 14:37 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-23 20:09 -0500
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-24 04:30 -0800
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-25 02:45 -0600
Re: The Revenge of the Geeks Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-27 23:33 -0800
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 10:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <510154ce$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21639 |
On 1/24/2013 7:15 AM, cipher wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:20:33 -0500, Arne Vajhøj Inscribed upon the Golden > Tablets of Usenet thusly: > >> On 1/23/2013 8:10 PM, cipher wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:01:01 -0500, Arne Vajhøj Inscribed upon the >>> Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly: >>> >>>> On 1/23/2013 7:51 PM, cipher wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:26:47 -0500, Arne Vajhøj Inscribed upon the >>>>> Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:07 PM, cipher wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:54:53 -0800, joel garry Inscribed upon the >>>>>>> Golden >>>>>>>> We know how Oracle wound up with java. Sun fucked up, Larry >>>>>>>> swooped in and got loads of intellectual property and engineering >>>>>>>> expertise for pennies on the dollar. It's the American way! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Java is dying on the home desktop. Maybe other places as well... >>>>>> >>>>>> Depend on your definition of dying. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to statowl those with Java installed has dropped from 81% >>>>>> to 66%. >>>>> >>>>> 81% to 61% sure don't sound healthy... >>>>> >>>>> Java is dying. Period. >>>> >>>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-01-18/ >>>> >>>> >>> <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/> >> >> We may be a bit old fashioned in the Java group. >> >> Facts is still considered a positive. > > I appreciate your not jumping on my error, 66% not 61% is what I should > have posted... I did but I am just a bit subtle. > When Homeland Security/CERT start posting recommendations and > instructions for removing Java you know your product is in trouble. Not really. The Java economy is something like 0.1% applets, 0.9% desktop apps and 99% server side apps. So if Java on desktop dropped to 0% in 10 minutes, then almost nobody in the Java world would even notice it. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <510159b7$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21639 |
On 1/24/2013 7:15 AM, cipher wrote: > Additionally, at least one major software outfit, Libre Office, has > announced their intentions to scrap Java in favor of another solution. > As it is, only the DB portion of LO relies on Java... I did not see that announcement. DB is the big Java part, but there are also some other minor pieces in Java. Java in OO/LO has always been controversial. But I suspect that they may find it difficult to get rid of. They need to find a new DB engine and integrate with that. They need to replace all the Java code. It may not be the biggest parts, but some years ago (around OOo 3.1 time) I counted almost 3500 Java sources files in the source. And they have the DB conversion issue. Can they live with not being able to open old databases or do they include HSQLDB and Java the next 5 years to be able to convert old databases. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 23:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kec8aq$i3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21629 |
On 1/23/2013, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-01-18/ >>> On 1/23/2013, cipher wrote: >> <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/> On 1/24/2013, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > We may be a bit old fashioned in the Java group. > > Facts is still considered a positive. When I first saw this sub-thread, I was hoping that this following conversation only consisted of references to Dilbert comic strips. That would have been a quite unique and probably avantgardistic form of communication. A chance forfeited ... Stuart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 22:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ff59be$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21601 |
On 1/22/2013 9:41 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote: > Oracle has getting a lot of attacks. > > "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java > updates" > > http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-with-java-updates-7000010038/?s_cid=e539 I hate that too. But ... > I can fathom how a software like Java could end up in the hands of a > company like Oracle... Oracle is good at making money. SUN was not good at making money. So SUN's assets ended up in Oracle. It is all about $$$. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 21:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50ff7620$0$80163$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #21601 |
In article <f803af84-fa9a-456b-a140-5a2a3b3ae84b@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: > Oracle has getting a lot of attacks. > > "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java > updates" > > http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-wi > th-java-updates-7000010038/?s_cid=e539 > > I can fathom how a software like Java could end up in the hands of a > company like Oracle... > > -Ramon Thankfully, I don't run Windows anywhere so I don't get this. I'm surprised they don't bundle an AltaVista toolbar and a GIF clipart library from back in the days when desktop shovelware was common. Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise edition" libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on streamlining the language itself. -- I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 00:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdnvk2$i8v$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21612 |
On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > In article > <f803af84-fa9a-456b-a140-5a2a3b3ae84b@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: > >> Oracle has getting a lot of attacks. >> >> "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java >> updates" >> >> http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-wi >> th-java-updates-7000010038/?s_cid=e539 >> >> I can fathom how a software like Java could end up in the hands of a >> company like Oracle... >> >> -Ramon > > Thankfully, I don't run Windows anywhere so I don't get this. I'm > surprised they don't bundle an AltaVista toolbar and a GIF clipart > library from back in the days when desktop shovelware was common. > > Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it > either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise edition" > libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on > streamlining the language itself. > much agreed... the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my bigger complaints about Java at present. this is along with what few new features are added to the core language (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 05:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <90OLs.55298$Ep5.21372@newsfe08.iad> |
| In reply to | #21613 |
On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: > On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >> In article >> <f803af84-fa9a-456b-a140-5a2a3b3ae84b@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: >> >>> Oracle has getting a lot of attacks. >>> >>> "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java >>> updates" >>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-wi >>> >>> th-java-updates-7000010038/?s_cid=e539 >>> >>> I can fathom how a software like Java could end up in the hands of a >>> company like Oracle... >>> >>> -Ramon >> >> Thankfully, I don't run Windows anywhere so I don't get this. I'm >> surprised they don't bundle an AltaVista toolbar and a GIF clipart >> library from back in the days when desktop shovelware was common. >> >> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it >> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise edition" >> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >> streamlining the language itself. >> > > much agreed... > > the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my > bigger complaints about Java at present. > > this is along with what few new features are added to the core language > (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM options now. So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of what other people have written: libraries. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 04:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdoeh1$iau$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21614 |
On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>> In article >>> <f803af84-fa9a-456b-a140-5a2a3b3ae84b@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >>> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Oracle has getting a lot of attacks. >>>> >>>> "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java >>>> updates" >>>> >>>> http://www.zdnet.com/a-close-look-at-how-oracle-installs-deceptive-software-wi >>>> >>>> >>>> th-java-updates-7000010038/?s_cid=e539 >>>> >>>> I can fathom how a software like Java could end up in the hands of a >>>> company like Oracle... >>>> >>>> -Ramon >>> >>> Thankfully, I don't run Windows anywhere so I don't get this. I'm >>> surprised they don't bundle an AltaVista toolbar and a GIF clipart >>> library from back in the days when desktop shovelware was common. >>> >>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it >>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise edition" >>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>> streamlining the language itself. >>> >> >> much agreed... >> >> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my >> bigger complaints about Java at present. >> >> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language >> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. > > I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so > long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've > selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better > choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the > language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation > shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM > options now. > > So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core > language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java > to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's > important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE > libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. > yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, say, C++ or C#. like, it is the great battle of "all options being equal, what language will I use to write this?...". granted, yes, typically a person will work on a pre-existing project, and typically use whatever language(s) the project is already written in. > 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of > what other people have written: libraries. > potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but libraries none-the-less... I guess it is more of an issue what sorts of libraries one has the most use for, and IME, most of the libraries I am interested in seem to exist mostly in C and C++ land. sometimes C# is useful for quick-and-dirty GUI apps, and Paint.NET plugins, but otherwise it is a hard sell using a language which basically leaves one's apps tied to Windows (and on Mono, C++/CLI doesn't work, largely killing off most of what reason I might have for using it for much beyond quick-and-dirty GUI apps...). most of what I end up writing in C and C++ tends to be mostly algorithm heavy and math-heavy code, typically making lots of use of vector math and similar (where one can have both a nice vector interface, and optimize them via SSE intrinsics, ...). (like, where one spends a lot of time optimizing things in the quest for higher frame-rates...). granted, the big drawbacks in C and C++ land are the long compile times and lack of native dynamic-code-loading or eval, which is kind of why scripting languages are popular (and I have my own scripting language here, and recently went and wrote a new JIT for it as well, ...). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 20:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51008bba$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21615 |
On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: > On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it >>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>> edition" >>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>> streamlining the language itself. >>> >>> much agreed... >>> >>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my >>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>> >>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language >>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >> >> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so >> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >> options now. >> >> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core >> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's >> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. > > yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make > using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, > say, C++ or C#. I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good at. C# is a pretty good language. >> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of >> what other people have written: libraries. >> > > potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language > options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but > libraries none-the-less... Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 22:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdqefr$k6n$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21628 |
On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it >>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>>> edition" >>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>>> streamlining the language itself. >>>> >>>> much agreed... >>>> >>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my >>>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>>> >>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language >>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >>> >>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so >>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >>> options now. >>> >>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core >>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's >>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >> >> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >> say, C++ or C#. > > I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then > C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good > at. > some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things like compilers and scripting VM technology. these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. > C# is a pretty good language. > in general, yes, it is ok. its main selling points IMO are its reasonably fast compile times and ease of quickly throwing together GUIs in WinForms, ... well, and also IntelliSense works in Visual Studio, but this ranges between helpful and very annoying. >>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of >>> what other people have written: libraries. >>> >> >> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >> libraries none-the-less... > > Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. > AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most end-users have Java SE installed. but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD), and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, although GPL has some of its own issues (can't really use GPL'ed code in developing proprietary software, ...).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 06:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aG7Ms.15389$O02.8079@newsfe18.iad> |
| In reply to | #21631 |
On 01/24/2013 12:47 AM, BGB wrote: > On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great >>>>>> at it >>>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>>>> edition" >>>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>>>> streamlining the language itself. >>>>> >>>>> much agreed... >>>>> >>>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one >>>>> of my >>>>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>>>> >>>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core >>>>> language >>>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >>>> >>>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so >>>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >>>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >>>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >>>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >>>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >>>> options now. >>>> >>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the >>>> core >>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's >>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >>> >>> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >>> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >>> say, C++ or C#. >> >> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >> at. >> > > some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... > > > for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in > audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things > like compilers and scripting VM technology. > > these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. > [ SNIP ] "Business" apps is however the core strength of Java, that and all the tooling that goes along with it. I couldn't care less if Java is found on *any* consumer computer, because that's not particularly important. It comes back to this: you pick a language because of what it's suited for, or after languages have been around for a while, what other people already have used it for. For "enterprise" type work the languages used are variable. For example, if you're dealing with IBM WebSphere MQ, depending on your task, you might be using a .NET language, Java, C or C++. But nevertheless a great deal of applications from the big iron companies are Java SE and EE. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 04:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdr3dj$h8u$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21635 |
On 1/24/2013 4:03 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 01/24/2013 12:47 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great >>>>>>> at it >>>>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>>>>> edition" >>>>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>>>>> streamlining the language itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> much agreed... >>>>>> >>>>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one >>>>>> of my >>>>>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>>>>> >>>>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core >>>>>> language >>>>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to >>>>> stagnant, so >>>>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >>>>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >>>>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >>>>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >>>>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >>>>> options now. >>>>> >>>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the >>>>> core >>>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? >>>>> What's >>>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >>>> >>>> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >>>> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >>>> say, C++ or C#. >>> >>> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >>> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >>> at. >>> >> >> some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... >> >> >> for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in >> audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things >> like compilers and scripting VM technology. >> >> these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. >> > [ SNIP ] > > "Business" apps is however the core strength of Java, that and all the > tooling that goes along with it. I couldn't care less if Java is found > on *any* consumer computer, because that's not particularly important. > > It comes back to this: you pick a language because of what it's suited > for, or after languages have been around for a while, what other people > already have used it for. > > For "enterprise" type work the languages used are variable. For example, > if you're dealing with IBM WebSphere MQ, depending on your task, you > might be using a .NET language, Java, C or C++. But nevertheless a great > deal of applications from the big iron companies are Java SE and EE. > well, yes, but this creates a split: people writing business apps have reason to use it, since it does fairly well at this particular domain; people doing other stuff have less reason to use it (since, they are not writing business apps, and it doesn't have as many strong points outside this area). it is worth noting though that the original topic applied mostly to end-users using Java on Windows systems, and presumably what sorts of apps this implies (most likely end-user applications, running on desktop PCs). very likely, this largely amounts to things like OpenOffice and Minecraft and similar... but, Java doesn't otherwise make a strong presence in this space. granted, yes, I may be biased some in that I don't really write all that much Java code (admittedly, I have written a lot more C and C# code, and ironically, more C# thus far than C++). actually, there is more code in my scripting-language than in C++ as well at present it seems (so, the language-use ranking based on line-counts of my project is like: C, C#, BS, C++, Java). all sort of glued together into a single Mloc-sized project... C is dominiant, and also sort of the "common hub" language, as pretty much everything can talk to C, but not as often to each other. or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51015d05$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21637 |
On 1/24/2013 5:44 AM, BGB wrote: > On 1/24/2013 4:03 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> On 01/24/2013 12:47 AM, BGB wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >>>> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >>>> at. >>> >>> some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... >>> >>> for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in >>> audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things >>> like compilers and scripting VM technology. >>> >>> these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. >>> >> [ SNIP ] >> >> "Business" apps is however the core strength of Java, that and all the >> tooling that goes along with it. I couldn't care less if Java is found >> on *any* consumer computer, because that's not particularly important. >> >> It comes back to this: you pick a language because of what it's suited >> for, or after languages have been around for a while, what other people >> already have used it for. >> >> For "enterprise" type work the languages used are variable. For example, >> if you're dealing with IBM WebSphere MQ, depending on your task, you >> might be using a .NET language, Java, C or C++. But nevertheless a great >> deal of applications from the big iron companies are Java SE and EE. >> > > well, yes, but this creates a split: > people writing business apps have reason to use it, since it does fairly > well at this particular domain; > people doing other stuff have less reason to use it (since, they are not > writing business apps, and it doesn't have as many strong points outside > this area). Java is not the language for all purposes. > it is worth noting though that the original topic applied mostly to > end-users using Java on Windows systems, and presumably what sorts of > apps this implies (most likely end-user applications, running on desktop > PCs). True. But it it is still relevant because it explains where and why the focus of Java are. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eumdnQPFvL05jJzMnZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #21635 |
On 24/01/13 10:03, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 01/24/2013 12:47 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: [snip] > "Business" apps is however the core strength of Java, that and all the > tooling that goes along with it. I couldn't care less if Java is found > on *any* consumer computer, because that's not particularly important. I couldn't agree more. We do nothing but build business systems in Java, however we do also use quite a few desktop tools written in Java, Eclipse and Argo UML being two notable ones. But I guess you could include these in the 'business tooling' category. lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 11:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51015c23$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21631 |
On 1/23/2013 11:47 PM, BGB wrote: > On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great >>>>>> at it >>>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>>>> edition" >>>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>>>> streamlining the language itself. >>>>> >>>>> much agreed... >>>>> >>>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one >>>>> of my >>>>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>>>> >>>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core >>>>> language >>>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >>>> >>>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so >>>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >>>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >>>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >>>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >>>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >>>> options now. >>>> >>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the >>>> core >>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's >>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >>> >>> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >>> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >>> say, C++ or C#. >> >> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >> at. > > some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... Yes. But then Java may not be the obvious choice. > for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in > audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things > like compilers and scripting VM technology. > > these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. Yes. Java is probably almost non-existing on the graphical side. I believe some multi-player games use Java server side. >> C# is a pretty good language. >> > > in general, yes, it is ok. > > its main selling points IMO are its reasonably fast compile times and > ease of quickly throwing together GUIs in WinForms, ... WinForms was supplemented with a slight taste of replaced with WPF 7 years ago. >>>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of >>>> what other people have written: libraries. >>>> >>> >>> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >>> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >>> libraries none-the-less... >> >> Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. >> > > AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most > end-users have Java SE installed. No - Java EE does not necessarily cost money. JBoss, Tomcat etc. can be used for free. Java EE is server side. Client side will typical be browser, but can in theory also be a Java SE desktop app or a .NET/native desktop app. > but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of > libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD), > and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, In the EE space you would need to look at CORBA or DCOM. You would prefer Java EE believe me. :-) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdsbk5$575$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21652 |
On 1/24/2013 10:06 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/23/2013 11:47 PM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great >>>>>>> at it >>>>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise >>>>>>> edition" >>>>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on >>>>>>> streamlining the language itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> much agreed... >>>>>> >>>>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one >>>>>> of my >>>>>> bigger complaints about Java at present. >>>>>> >>>>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core >>>>>> language >>>>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to >>>>> stagnant, so >>>>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've >>>>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better >>>>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the >>>>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation >>>>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM >>>>> options now. >>>>> >>>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the >>>>> core >>>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? >>>>> What's >>>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >>>> >>>> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >>>> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >>>> say, C++ or C#. >>> >>> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >>> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >>> at. >> >> some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... > > Yes. But then Java may not be the obvious choice. > >> for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in >> audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things >> like compilers and scripting VM technology. >> >> these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold. > > Yes. > > Java is probably almost non-existing on the graphical side. > > I believe some multi-player games use Java server side. > Minecraft has both the client and server end written in Java. don't know much about others games. most of the other game engines I am aware of are typically written in C or C++, usually with either a common scripting language (such as Python or Lua), or a specialized scripting language (such as UnrealScript, descendants of QuakeC, ...). in most I am familiar with, servers are typically run by individuals, usually either a "listen server", where the player runs the server and also plays the game at the same time, and other players may join their world, or a "dedicated server", typically where the server runs in its own process, which may or may not be on the same computer the player is using to play the game. I am less familiar with MMOs though, but from what I can gather it is more often that they will do something like the dedicated server case, just typically run each area on its own server (often each on a different physical computer as well). when a player hits an area between server-managed regions, they will typically just jump from one server to another. my project more fits into the category of a game-engine mostly in C with a scripting language, and is mostly aiming for the listen-server and player-run dedicated-server use case (which may be coupled with the use of an HTTP server for pulling other game contents). I ended up trying to use Java for scripting at one point (since Minecraft made it look like maybe this made sense), and ended up using my own custom mini-JVM (using a JavaME like subset, mostly due to JNI frustration), but soon enough realized that it didn't really make a particularly great scripting language (didn't really fit in well with the use case, and I couldn't readily "eval()" it). (I also evaluated using .NET and/or Mono and C# for scripting, but this also looked like a big mess). so, effort mostly shifted back to my custom script language, which is more closely derived from JavaScript and ActionScript (with a lot more elements from C, Java, C#, ... glued on). (like, hell, I will glue on what parts I care about). it seems to work moderately well for game-scripting tasks, without the same level of funkiness as Lua or Python (I more prefer an at least vaguely C/Java/C# style syntax, even if the language still has its share of funkiness, and the controversy over whether to the use JS/AS or Java/C# style declaration syntax, ...). theoretically, I guess it would be a more direct competitor with Lua or similar though. security is a potential worry case (yet to be adequately addressed IMO), mostly to hopefully be able to prevent malicious content to be spread to/from servers and/or exploit client computers. these would be sort of like macro-viruses in MS Word or similar... >>> C# is a pretty good language. >>> >> >> in general, yes, it is ok. >> >> its main selling points IMO are its reasonably fast compile times and >> ease of quickly throwing together GUIs in WinForms, ... > > WinForms was supplemented with a slight taste of replaced with > WPF 7 years ago. > well, yes, but a person can choose whether they want to use WinForms or WPF (at least in my version of Visual Studio, it gives both options in the "New Project" box, along with "Console Application", ...). >>>>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of >>>>> what other people have written: libraries. >>>>> >>>> >>>> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >>>> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >>>> libraries none-the-less... >>> >>> Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. >>> >> >> AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most >> end-users have Java SE installed. > > No - Java EE does not necessarily cost money. JBoss, Tomcat etc. can be > used for free. > > Java EE is server side. Client side will typical be browser, but can in > theory also be a Java SE desktop app or a .NET/native desktop app. > ok. I had thought Java EE had been like some sort of bigger money-costing version of Java SE (with more libraries and stuff). granted, I had never really looked much into it. >> but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of >> libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD), >> and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, > > In the EE space you would need to look at CORBA or DCOM. > > You would prefer Java EE believe me. > > :-) > errm, so you can't just copy all the files over to ones' servers? and/or recompile the code for ones' servers?... granted, dunno much about business systems, but I was under the understanding that most were some combination of: rack mounts running Linux, typically with x86 CPUs, and with Gigabit Ethernet or 10GbE or similar linking them all together. one or more server computers in a desktop-like form factor, sometimes with multi-CPU boards, Xeon or Opteron chips, and craploads of RAM installed, and sometimes also in a LAN. AFAIK, Linux is also popular here. (though I guess Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows Server, also make an appearance). something more strange, like IBM mainframes or similar, where everyone uses them via funky multi colored textual interfaces inside of a terminal emulator, ... pretty much everything I have read about them sounds strange. as for data sharing (between lots of networked servers), I am less sure, I would think maybe something like NFS or SAMBA, but then thinking of it, NFS or Samba might not scale well if the number of servers becomes sufficiently large (like, people would probably want to locally cache files, rather than always doing IO over the network, ...). I guess alternatively, an option could be a sort of centralized batch-push or batch-pull, where a daemon or similar is used to update all the servers, or something... (say, on a schedule, they pull from a Git or Hg repository or something...). but, in any case, people have probably figured out all this stuff already. otherwise, not entirely sure why developing for these would be all that much different than dealing with a normal PC or Linux box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 17:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101b5fc$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21671 |
On 1/24/2013 5:10 PM, BGB wrote: > I ended up trying to use Java for scripting at one point (since > Minecraft made it look like maybe this made sense), and ended up using > my own custom mini-JVM (using a JavaME like subset, mostly due to JNI > frustration), but soon enough realized that it didn't really make a > particularly great scripting language (didn't really fit in well with > the use case, and I couldn't readily "eval()" it). > > (I also evaluated using .NET and/or Mono and C# for scripting, but this > also looked like a big mess). > > so, effort mostly shifted back to my custom script language, which is > more closely derived from JavaScript and ActionScript (with a lot more > elements from C, Java, C#, ... glued on). (like, hell, I will glue on > what parts I care about). > > it seems to work moderately well for game-scripting tasks, without the > same level of funkiness as Lua or Python (I more prefer an at least > vaguely C/Java/C# style syntax, even if the language still has its share > of funkiness, and the controversy over whether to the use JS/AS or > Java/C# style declaration syntax, ...). > > theoretically, I guess it would be a more direct competitor with Lua or > similar though. If one need a scripting language, then a scripting language is often the best choice. :-) If you absolutely want to use Java, then use BeanShell. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 17:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kdsh2o$fg8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #21672 |
On 1/24/2013 4:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/24/2013 5:10 PM, BGB wrote: >> I ended up trying to use Java for scripting at one point (since >> Minecraft made it look like maybe this made sense), and ended up using >> my own custom mini-JVM (using a JavaME like subset, mostly due to JNI >> frustration), but soon enough realized that it didn't really make a >> particularly great scripting language (didn't really fit in well with >> the use case, and I couldn't readily "eval()" it). >> >> (I also evaluated using .NET and/or Mono and C# for scripting, but this >> also looked like a big mess). >> >> so, effort mostly shifted back to my custom script language, which is >> more closely derived from JavaScript and ActionScript (with a lot more >> elements from C, Java, C#, ... glued on). (like, hell, I will glue on >> what parts I care about). >> >> it seems to work moderately well for game-scripting tasks, without the >> same level of funkiness as Lua or Python (I more prefer an at least >> vaguely C/Java/C# style syntax, even if the language still has its share >> of funkiness, and the controversy over whether to the use JS/AS or >> Java/C# style declaration syntax, ...). >> >> theoretically, I guess it would be a more direct competitor with Lua or >> similar though. > > If one need a scripting language, then a scripting language is > often the best choice. > yeah, it can also be specialized to application needs, like, say, a scripting language for a game having built-in vector math support and similar (vectors are a part of the numeric tower). > :-) > > If you absolutely want to use Java, then use BeanShell. > well, as-is my script-language works well enough. and, my main codebase is pretty solidly stuck with being C as well. (could do more C++, but this would make a mess of some things, as at-present most of my tools can't parse or process C++ code, as well as making code using C++ features as part of its external API unusable from script code, ...). luckily, with the new JIT, the language shouldn't be as slow as it was before either (I was measuring it as around 3x slower than C for things like array sorting), which is an improvement over the 60x slower than C with the plain-C interpreter. the JIT is still a bit naive at present though, and doesn't cover much/most of the ISA, in which case operations fall back to "call threaded code" (but, this is still faster than the plain interpreter). admittedly, this JIT is x86 only at the moment. as-is, some elements of the VM architecture did take some ideas from the JVM though, like for example, many opcodes are either type-specific or may be type-qualified via prefixes, ... the use of prefixes was more a result of migrating a dynamically-typed VM to being largely statically typed, as the prefixes resulted in less ISA expansion (and also it being easier to figure this stuff out in the front-end compiler than in the back-end). though, I did end up with a pile of type-specialized arithmetic operations. like "ADD_XI" or "PF_HINT_XI ADD", which serve a similar role to "IADD" in the JVM, ... or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101ba6d$0$283$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21671 |
On 1/24/2013 5:10 PM, BGB wrote: > On 1/24/2013 10:06 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 11:47 PM, BGB wrote: >>> On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>>>> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed >>>>>> use of >>>>>> what other people have written: libraries. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >>>>> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >>>>> libraries none-the-less... >>>> >>>> Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. >>>> >>> >>> AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most >>> end-users have Java SE installed. >> >> No - Java EE does not necessarily cost money. JBoss, Tomcat etc. can be >> used for free. >> >> Java EE is server side. Client side will typical be browser, but can in >> theory also be a Java SE desktop app or a .NET/native desktop app. >> > > ok. > > I had thought Java EE had been like some sort of bigger money-costing > version of Java SE (with more libraries and stuff). > > granted, I had never really looked much into it. Java EE is: - specs (PDF files) about how applications are interacting with servers and what servers do - server implementations, some pure commercial (WebSphere, WebLogic), some commercial and open source (JBoss), some pure open source (Tomcat, Jetty, Glassfish) The functionality is server centric. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101bcb2$0$283$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21671 |
On 1/24/2013 5:10 PM, BGB wrote: > On 1/24/2013 10:06 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 11:47 PM, BGB wrote: >>> but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of >>> libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD), >>> and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, >> >> In the EE space you would need to look at CORBA or DCOM. >> >> You would prefer Java EE believe me. >> >> :-) >> > > errm, so you can't just copy all the files over to ones' servers? and/or > recompile the code for ones' servers?... The coding model in Java EE is definitely more modern than that of CORBA and DCOM. > granted, dunno much about business systems, but I was under the > understanding that most were some combination of: > > rack mounts running Linux, typically with x86 CPUs, and with Gigabit > Ethernet or 10GbE or similar linking them all together. > > one or more server computers in a desktop-like form factor, sometimes > with multi-CPU boards, Xeon or Opteron chips, and craploads of RAM > installed, and sometimes also in a LAN. AFAIK, Linux is also popular > here. (though I guess Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows Server, > also make an appearance). > > something more strange, like IBM mainframes or similar, where everyone > uses them via funky multi colored textual interfaces inside of a > terminal emulator, ... pretty much everything I have read about them > sounds strange. Java EE run on servers for production usage. But all types of OS and hardware. Linux is the most popular OS, but Windows, various Unix and mainframe are still seen. > as for data sharing (between lots of networked servers), I am less sure, > I would think maybe something like NFS or SAMBA, but then thinking of > it, NFS or Samba might not scale well if the number of servers becomes > sufficiently large (like, people would probably want to locally cache > files, rather than always doing IO over the network, ...). Persistent data in the the Java EE world is most often in database. > otherwise, not entirely sure why developing for these would be all that > much different than dealing with a normal PC or Linux box. It is not the type of box that makes a difference. You can run a Java EE app server on your laptop. You laptop does just not have the IO system and the 24x7 reliability to run in most production contexts. The difference in development is the services provided by the server that the application can utilize if the application follows the rules. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web