Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10355 > unrolled thread

java developers

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  java developers curixinfotech <curixinfotech.540mfz@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2011-11-30 07:14 -0500
    Re: java developers Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-30 07:55 -0500
      Re: java developers Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 06:32 -0800
        Re: java developers Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-30 09:41 -0800
        Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 17:03 -0500
          Re: java developers Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-12-02 14:30 -0800
            Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 18:40 -0500
              Re: java developers Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-03 14:42 +0000
                Re: java developers Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-12-03 10:09 -0500
                  Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-04 22:17 -0500
                Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-04 22:11 -0500
      Re: java developers curixinfotech <curixinfotech.54dibz@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> - 2011-12-07 05:56 -0500
    Re: java developers Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-02 01:48 -0800
    Re: java developers Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2011-12-02 22:16 +1100
      Re: java developers David Segall <david@address.invalid> - 2011-12-02 23:17 +1100
        Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 16:29 -0500
          Re: java developers David Segall <david@address.invalid> - 2011-12-03 15:15 +1100
      Re: java developers Henk van Voorthuijsen <voorth@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 03:39 -0800
      Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-02 14:43 +0100
      Re: java developers Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-02 07:32 -0800
      Re: java developers Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-02 18:18 +0100
        Re: java developers Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2011-12-04 10:50 +1100
          Re: java developers Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2011-12-03 19:43 -0800
          Re: java developers Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-04 10:56 +0000
          Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-05 11:00 +0100
            Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:38 -0500
              Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-06 10:33 +0100
            Re: java developers Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-06 21:17 +0000
              Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-07 15:09 +0100
    Re: java developers dsnitelex@gmail.com - 2011-12-02 21:51 -0800
      Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-03 10:51 +0100
        Re: java developers Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-03 11:41 -0400
        Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-04 22:28 -0500
          Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-05 10:31 +0100
            Re: java developers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:35 -0500
              Re: java developers Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-12-06 10:25 +0100
          Re: java developers Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-06 21:10 +0000
      Re: java developers BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2011-12-05 22:52 -0800
        Re: java developers Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-06 06:49 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10434

Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-30 23:14:37 +1100, curixinfotech said:
> 
> > why java is the language of choice for Developers.

It isn't, it's *a* heavyweight system for cross platform GUI scripting.

> Visual Basic is very advanced language (it doesn't require line 
> numbers) 

Assembly language doesn't require line numbers

> and it supports structured programming. 

Structured programming is for steers and queers. Which one are you, boy?

> You cannot go wrong with it.

Oh I think you can.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10474

On 2011-12-03 04:18:26 +1100, Nomen Nescio said:

> Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-11-30 23:14:37 +1100, curixinfotech said:
>> 
>>> why java is the language of choice for Developers.
> 
> It isn't, it's *a* heavyweight system for cross platform GUI scripting.

I would beg to differ much on this point. Visual Basic supports the COM 
(Computer Open Model) and it will automatically generate code from the 
IDL (Internal Definition Language). This makes it easy to execute codes 
even inside the bowels of the operating system.

In fact, Visual Basic allows the user to create their own COM objects 
which can be consumed by operating system. This is not GUI scripting.   
I think you are confused by the VBScript which is a different thing 
(VBScript is perhaps more like Ruby or Python but considerably more 
advanced).

>> Visual Basic is very advanced language (it doesn't require line
>> numbers)
> 
> Assembly language doesn't require line numbers

Well, even if assembly language doesn't have line numbers, Visual Basic 
is superior to assembly language.  It has better font support.

> 
>> and it supports structured programming.
> 
> Structured programming is for steers and queers. Which one are you, boy?

I do not practice the perversions you nominate. I think those 
perversions are more common with Java developers.

> 
>> You cannot go wrong with it.
> 
> Oh I think you can.

Java enshrines many wrongnesses.  For example the excessive use of the 
factory pattern, like for example factory factories and factory factory 
factories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10476

Rajiv Gupta wrote :
> Java enshrines many wrongnesses.  For example the excessive use of the 
> factory pattern, like for example factory factories and factory factory 
> factories.

Company policies, and developers do that. Nothing in the Java spec 
mandates factories.

-- 
Wojtek :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10484

Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:
> [...], Visual Basic is superior to assembly language.
>  It has better font support.

rofl!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10520

On 12/04/2011 12:50 AM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
> On 2011-12-03 04:18:26 +1100, Nomen Nescio said:
>
>> Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-30 23:14:37 +1100, curixinfotech said:
>>>
>>>> why java is the language of choice for Developers.
>>
>> It isn't, it's *a* heavyweight system for cross platform GUI scripting.
>
> I would beg to differ much on this point. Visual Basic supports the COM
> (Computer Open Model) and it will automatically generate code from the

COM stands for Component Object Model and it is only partially supported 
by VB (or do you mean VB.NET?).

> IDL (Internal Definition Language). This makes it easy to execute codes

IDL stands for Interface Definition Language.

> even inside the bowels of the operating system.
>
> In fact, Visual Basic allows the user to create their own COM objects
> which can be consumed by operating system. This is not GUI scripting. I
> think you are confused by the VBScript which is a different thing
> (VBScript is perhaps more like Ruby or Python but considerably more
> advanced).

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

>
>>> Visual Basic is very advanced language (it doesn't require line
>>> numbers)
>>
>> Assembly language doesn't require line numbers
>
> Well, even if assembly language doesn't have line numbers, Visual Basic
> is superior to assembly language. It has better font support.

That is true but you can make coffee and cake with assembly language, 
which is impossible with VB.

>
>>
>>> and it supports structured programming.
>>
>> Structured programming is for steers and queers. Which one are you, boy?
>
> I do not practice the perversions you nominate. I think those
> perversions are more common with Java developers.
>
>>
>>> You cannot go wrong with it.
>>
>> Oh I think you can.
>
> Java enshrines many wrongnesses. For example the excessive use of the
> factory pattern, like for example factory factories and factory factory
> factories.
>

Java also does not support the tractor pattern, like VB does. This makes 
it very easy to collect many little peaces of shit and create one 
enormous pile of crap you can roll around in.

I suspect you are a troll but every now and then it is fun to take the 
bait. Gives one an excuse for talking nonsense and using foul language 
on the Internet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10542

On 12/5/2011 5:00 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 12:50 AM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>> On 2011-12-03 04:18:26 +1100, Nomen Nescio said:
>>
>>> Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-30 23:14:37 +1100, curixinfotech said:
>>>>
>>>>> why java is the language of choice for Developers.
>>>
>>> It isn't, it's *a* heavyweight system for cross platform GUI scripting.
>>
>> I would beg to differ much on this point. Visual Basic supports the COM
>> (Computer Open Model) and it will automatically generate code from the
>
> COM stands for Component Object Model

Yep.

>                                        and it is only partially supported
> by VB (or do you mean VB.NET?).

You can use COM objects (both via TLB and via IDispatch).

You can write COM objects.

What else do you need?

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10549

On 12/06/2011 04:38 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/5/2011 5:00 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 12:50 AM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-03 04:18:26 +1100, Nomen Nescio said:
>>>
>>>> Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-11-30 23:14:37 +1100, curixinfotech said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> why java is the language of choice for Developers.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't, it's *a* heavyweight system for cross platform GUI scripting.
>>>
>>> I would beg to differ much on this point. Visual Basic supports the COM
>>> (Computer Open Model) and it will automatically generate code from the
>>
>> COM stands for Component Object Model
>
> Yep.
>
>> and it is only partially supported
>> by VB (or do you mean VB.NET?).
>
> You can use COM objects (both via TLB and via IDispatch).
>
> You can write COM objects.
>
> What else do you need?
>
> Arne
>

Well, VB6 COM is automation based. If you try to mix VB with custom COM 
interfaces you (or others) have developed in C++ you run into problems 
concerning the the IEnumXXX (among which IEnumUnknown) interfaces. I 
know there are some workarounds to circumvent the limitations but they 
all need cooperation from the other COM objects.

Silvio

Thank you for having me think hard to remember about COM internals. I 
had forcefully forgotten about this (shudder). Helps me realize the 
luxury of developing for the JVM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10570

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Silvio Bierman wrote:

> Java also does not support the tractor pattern, like VB does. This makes 
> it very easy to collect many little peaces of shit and create one 
> enormous pile of crap you can roll around in.

i'm going to remember that one! although perhaps this is the scarab 
pattern?

tom

-- 
non, scarecrow, forensics, rituals, bacteria, scientific instruments, ..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10591

On 12/06/2011 10:17 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Silvio Bierman wrote:
>
>> Java also does not support the tractor pattern, like VB does. This
>> makes it very easy to collect many little peaces of shit and create
>> one enormous pile of crap you can roll around in.
>
> i'm going to remember that one! although perhaps this is the scarab
> pattern?
>
> tom
>

Definitely better! The scarab pattern it is from now on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10459

Once you know one language, learning and development of other languages is a lot easier. Java as a entry level programming language is also better than say C variants because its object oriented, universal and beautiful.

But is it better than all the others? Definitely not. Is it my go-to language? Yes, but say if i need more memory management than object orientation i will be smart, wont be a fan boy and choose C, because i can.

Balance is the key

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10461

On 12/03/2011 06:51 AM, dsnitelex@gmail.com wrote:
> Once you know one language, learning and development of other languages is a lot easier. Java as a entry level programming language is also better than say C variants because its object oriented, universal and beautiful.
>
> But is it better than all the others? Definitely not. Is it my go-to language? Yes, but say if i need more memory management than object orientation i will be smart, wont be a fan boy and choose C, because i can.
>
> Balance is the key

I think Java is a hybrid language which makes it very general purpose 
and a good candidate for being someones go-to language.

Knowing an actually pure object oriented language like Smalltalk, 
functional language like Haskell and low-level language like C at the 
same time, preferably accompanied with at least one assembly language, 
is probably a better basis for understanding most other languages.

Although I have probably used 25 or so other languages besides what I 
just mentioned I have mainly used C++, Java and (the last three years) 
Scala. These are all hybrids. For me they seem to be the more practical 
languages for actually getting my work done.

Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with 
my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use 
languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is 
the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing VB 
program), Delphi, several fourth generation languages/tools (where have 
they gone?) and C# (which I would put on par with Java).

Nowadays I am more concerned with platforms. I prefer using the JVM if 
at all possible. This leaves me with enough language options, even if I 
am working with existing code bases. Having tons of usefull libraries 
freely available doesn't hurt either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10470

On 11-12-03 05:51 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
[ SNIP ]

> Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with
> my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use
> languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is
> the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing VB
> program)

I've had to some custom VB6 coding within the last 2 years, and some VB4
when it first came out. A body can do a competent job in later versions
of that language. It has the constructs to write solid procedural
programs - if you're going to struggle with it you'll also make a dog's
breakfast of FORTRAN or Pascal.

> , Delphi, several fourth generation languages/tools (where have
> they gone?)

A lot of them haven't gone anywhere, and many are still maturing or
being otherwise developed. See the Wikipedia listing at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_language;
just a casual glance at that list tells me that I've been involved with
at least half a dozen of those in the last 5-6 years (Informix 4GL,
NATURAL, WebSphere Business Modeler family, ABAP, LabVIEW, PL/SQL etc)
pop out at me right away.

In fact one of my current gigs is to interface some Oracle Forms 10g
apps to FileNet object stores. Oracle Forms PL/SQL work in Forms
Builder/Designer (and also Reports) is all 4GL. Granted, I'm working at
a lower level using Java in the client applets and on the app server,
and so only some of my actual coding is new Forms PL/SQL, but it's still
a 4GL environment overall.

Depending on what kind of work you do and have done, and what your
professional reading is, you may or may not have a realistic picture of
what systems and applications still live out there in businesses. I mean
"you" generally, not you specifically, Silvio.

One thing *I* know, don't count any technology out as extinct. :-)
Somebody somewhere will still be using it.

> and C# (which I would put on par with Java).

I'd say well ahead. C# (and its ecosystem: sibling languages,
runtime(s), tools, IDEs, class libraries) aren't designed and evolved by
committee to nearly the same degree as Java (and its ecosystem).

Teams are good, when they are less than a dozen people and have a single
good boss. Any other kind of team causes more problems than it's worth.
When you've got multiple corporate entities involved in deciding
*anything*, or multiple forceful individuals with no clear pecking
order, then you're in trouble.

> Nowadays I am more concerned with platforms. I prefer using the JVM if
> at all possible. This leaves me with enough language options, even if I
> am working with existing code bases. Having tons of usefull libraries
> freely available doesn't hurt either.

You won't go wrong targeting the JVM and the languages that live on it,
that's for sure. I must admit, on the JVM side I backed off Scala for a
while just because there was so much churn in it [1], but I'm observing
continuing developments in the language. Clojure I absolutely like.

AHS

1. Some churn is necessary, and I suppose the argument could be made
that C# and .NET have had just as much of it. For me it was simply the
fact that I can only absorb so much churn in so many different languages
and tools, and Scala wasn't important enough in my plans to rate the
effort. Yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10514

On 12/3/2011 4:51 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
> Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with
> my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use
> languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is
> the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing VB
> program),

VB was actually a very good language for what it was intended
to be used for.

Java, C#, C++ etc. can do a lot of more sophisticated
stuff.

But the typical business app GUI does not need sophisticated
stuff.

And VB was simply faster and cheaper for creating those types
of apps than Java, C#, C++ etc..

Developers with good programming skills and lousy business
understanding tend to bad mouth VB - Mort etc., but ...

There are probably many reasons behind the Win8 WinRT change of
direction at MS.

But I strongly suspect that one of the reasons is that MS has
realized that C# (and VB.NET) is not a good replacement for
VB for simple GUI's, so now they are trying with HTML, CSS and
JavaScript.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10519

On 12/05/2011 04:28 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/3/2011 4:51 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
>> Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with
>> my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use
>> languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is
>> the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing VB
>> program),
>
> VB was actually a very good language for what it was intended
> to be used for.
>

I personally disagree strongly. At the time I was forced to use VB6 I 
was an experienced Win API programmer using C++ with extensive knowledge 
about the internals of DLLs, ODBC, COM, MTS and who remembers what else.

First I had to use MFC where MS had done a very poor job of mapping the 
already crummy Win API to C++. But knowing what was under the hood made 
it somewhat manageable.

Then I had to use VB6. I will hand it to you that making a very basic 
GUI is easy using VB. But anything beyond a toy application becomes a 
challenge. To develop something like a custom control or GUI building 
block and reuse that, possibly multiple times in the same application is 
impossible to do at the language level only. Perhaps it could be done 
with ActiveX but having done that in C++ and knowing what hassle and 
overhead it would introduce I never bothered with it in VB.
Suddenly it became clear to me why the existing application I had to 
work on contained so much duplicate code.


> Java, C#, C++ etc. can do a lot of more sophisticated
> stuff.
>
> But the typical business app GUI does not need sophisticated
> stuff.
>

That depends on what you call sophisticated. The absence of object 
oriented language mechanisms makes programming an event driven GUI 
(which basically screams for an OO approach) kind of clumsy. I think you 
only get away with that if the business app is small. In my case it 
consisted of about 120K lines VB source.

> And VB was simply faster and cheaper for creating those types
> of apps than Java, C#, C++ etc..
>

I did some Delphi also. Although I dislike the whole idea behind such 
development tools, the Object Pascal language at least gives one the 
escape to build abstractions at the language level and Delhi actually 
used a quite decent mapping to the Win API.


> Developers with good programming skills and lousy business
> understanding tend to bad mouth VB - Mort etc., but ...
>

I have been running my own business for 17 years now so I suspect there 
are others who bad mouth VB, as you put it. I think that there are two 
prominent reasons organizations use(d) VB on a new project: either the 
developers don't know any better (or put differently: there are no 
developers available who can work with different tools) or the project 
is (or at least starts out) very small. Both might apply. The projects 
that start small but then grow big are the ones where VB starts smelling 
bad.

> There are probably many reasons behind the Win8 WinRT change of
> direction at MS.
>
> But I strongly suspect that one of the reasons is that MS has
> realized that C# (and VB.NET) is not a good replacement for
> VB for simple GUI's, so now they are trying with HTML, CSS and
> JavaScript.

I suspect this has little to do with deliberations about programing 
languages, they are an afterthought for them. MS has probably realized 
that their desktop oriented strategy is doomed in the not so long run 
and they need to move on towards mobile and cloud enabled apps etc. They 
must have concluded that the only sensible path for doing that at this 
point is going the HTML5 way. They do realize that means 
deprecating/phasing-out a substantial part if not all of their current 
platform and development tools but obviously have difficulty selling 
that to their developer community. Such news is hard to bring gently.

>
> Arne
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10541

On 12/5/2011 4:31 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 04:28 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/3/2011 4:51 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
>>> Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with
>>> my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use
>>> languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is
>>> the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing VB
>>> program),
>>
>> VB was actually a very good language for what it was intended
>> to be used for.
>>
>
> I personally disagree strongly. At the time I was forced to use VB6 I
> was an experienced Win API programmer using C++ with extensive knowledge
> about the internals of DLLs, ODBC, COM, MTS and who remembers what else.

Which makes it a waste to have you do VB.

> First I had to use MFC where MS had done a very poor job of mapping the
> already crummy Win API to C++. But knowing what was under the hood made
> it somewhat manageable.
>
> Then I had to use VB6. I will hand it to you that making a very basic
> GUI is easy using VB. But anything beyond a toy application becomes a
> challenge. To develop something like a custom control or GUI building
> block and reuse that, possibly multiple times in the same application is
> impossible to do at the language level only. Perhaps it could be done
> with ActiveX but having done that in C++ and knowing what hassle and
> overhead it would introduce I never bothered with it in VB.
> Suddenly it became clear to me why the existing application I had to
> work on contained so much duplicate code.

There is a gazillion GUI's out there that does not need custom
controls, GUI building blocks etc. - they just need a form and to
execute a few lines when a button is clicked.

And there are millions of developers out there that can do that,
but would never be able to work with C++, MFC etc..

>> Java, C#, C++ etc. can do a lot of more sophisticated
>> stuff.
>>
>> But the typical business app GUI does not need sophisticated
>> stuff.
>>
>
> That depends on what you call sophisticated. The absence of object
> oriented language mechanisms makes programming an event driven GUI
> (which basically screams for an OO approach) kind of clumsy. I think you
> only get away with that if the business app is small. In my case it
> consisted of about 120K lines VB source.

Sure it becomes clumsy.

But if the VB guys is done with the app before the real
programmer has decided on the class hierarchy, then ...

>> Developers with good programming skills and lousy business
>> understanding tend to bad mouth VB - Mort etc., but ...
>>
>
> I have been running my own business for 17 years now so I suspect there
> are others who bad mouth VB, as you put it.

Never heard of Mort????

>                                          I think that there are two
> prominent reasons organizations use(d) VB on a new project: either the
> developers don't know any better (or put differently: there are no
> developers available who can work with different tools) or the project
> is (or at least starts out) very small. Both might apply. The projects
> that start small but then grow big are the ones where VB starts smelling
> bad.

It was often the fastest and cheapest way to get things done.

>> There are probably many reasons behind the Win8 WinRT change of
>> direction at MS.
>>
>> But I strongly suspect that one of the reasons is that MS has
>> realized that C# (and VB.NET) is not a good replacement for
>> VB for simple GUI's, so now they are trying with HTML, CSS and
>> JavaScript.
>
> I suspect this has little to do with deliberations about programing
> languages, they are an afterthought for them. MS has probably realized
> that their desktop oriented strategy is doomed in the not so long run
> and they need to move on towards mobile and cloud enabled apps etc.

So they create a new platform for desktop development, because they
think desktop development is doomed?

That does not make sense to me!

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10548

On 12/06/2011 04:35 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>
> Which makes it a waste to have you do VB.
>

Well, I took on a project that required us to add some functionality 
(new mortgage types) to an existing mortgage comparison system that was 
written in VB. Since it was a very poorly structured system using (the 
mortgage types where not implemented as COM objects but instead using 
something akin a switch/case based on very fuzzy case selection 
parameters, the only option short of restructuring the crap was adding 
more crap.

>
> There is a gazillion GUI's out there that does not need custom
> controls, GUI building blocks etc. - they just need a form and to
> execute a few lines when a button is clicked.

Yes, but I do not consider that type of applications when discussing 
programming language merits and weaknesses. Such applications are easy 
using any programming language. I could do that in C++ just as quickly 
as in VB, in Java probably even quicker.

>
> And there are millions of developers out there that can do that,
> but would never be able to work with C++, MFC etc..
>

Perhaps. But you will always have to draw a line about what you consider 
in range for this type of discussion. There will always be people who 
can mange X where they will fail at Y.

If I discuss programming languages I tend to also talk about 
capable/professional programmers who (could) make a living programming.

>
> Sure it becomes clumsy.
>
> But if the VB guys is done with the app before the real
> programmer has decided on the class hierarchy, then ...
>

Doing it at the same level as the VB guy did it would not have to take 
much extra time using a different tool. It depends on the programmer, of 
course.

>
> Never heard of Mort????
>

Yes, I met him many times. But I restate that there are two ways to 
discuss and compare programming languages: one is to compare them at 
their technical merits only. The other way is to take the user audience 
and general availability of programmers into account. That is a much 
broader discussion that makes general conclusions about impossible, 
since for every organization, at every place in the world and at any 
point in time the situation will differ and the optimum will be 
different as well.

>
> It was often the fastest and cheapest way to get things done.
>

That again depends on who is doing it and how.

>
> So they create a new platform for desktop development, because they
> think desktop development is doomed?
>
> That does not make sense to me!
>

Although this is kind of guessing I think they see HTML5 as the path 
along which RIA and desktop applications will unite. They are not 
creating a desktop platform but a RIA platform that is supposed to 
eventually replace the traditional desktop.
This is a revolution for MS and personally I think it is a wise move.

Silvio

> Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10569

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 12/3/2011 4:51 AM, Silvio Bierman wrote:
>
>> Luckily I have almost always been in a position where I could work with 
>> my language of choice. In the remaining cases I have been forced to use 
>> languages like Visual Basic (I disagree with other posters that it is 
>> the right tool for anything except for further messing up an existing 
>> VB program),
>
> VB was actually a very good language for what it was intended
> to be used for.
>
> Java, C#, C++ etc. can do a lot of more sophisticated
> stuff.
>
> But the typical business app GUI does not need sophisticated
> stuff.

I don't think that's true, actually. Anything simple can be done in a 
spreadsheet, or Access, FileMaker, or similar. Anything too complex to do 
with one of those is complex enough to benefit from using a real language 
rather than VB.

> But I strongly suspect that one of the reasons is that MS has realized 
> that C# (and VB.NET) is not a good replacement for VB for simple GUI's, 
> so now they are trying with HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

Interesting thought.

tom

-- 
non, scarecrow, forensics, rituals, bacteria, scientific instruments, ..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10547

On Dec 2, 10:51 pm, dsnite...@gmail.com wrote:
> Once you know one language, learning and development of other languages is a lot easier. Java as a entry level programming language is also better than say C variants because its object oriented, universal and beautiful.
>

IMHO, Java is a C variant (or, at least, a C-family language).
granted, my definition is wide enough here to where I loosely also
consider JavaScript and ActionScript to be in this family as well.

C++ is also Object Oriented, and is much closer to C, but IMHO, C++ is
also a bit of a nasty complicated mess (and has additional drawbacks
specific to my case), so I don't use it much.


> But is it better than all the others? Definitely not. Is it my go-to language? Yes, but say if i need more memory management than object orientation i will be smart, wont be a fan boy and choose C, because i can.
>
> Balance is the key

yes.

I am primarily a C developer, but also sometimes use Java, C#, C++/
CLI, or my own custom language, depending on what I am doing. I am
also not above using assembler if the task calls for it (rare, mostly
esoteric compiler/VM stuff). I have also used Scheme and Common Lisp
in the past as well.

sadly, there is no "perfect" language.


so, a few pros/cons (which come to mind).

C, pros:
can generate fairly fast code;
close interaction with the OS (can directly access nearly everything
in Windows and Linux);
is fairly adaptable to implementing features which extend/alter basic
language functioning (adding garbage collection and dynamic
types, ...);
is available on most OS's.

C, cons:
many people find pointers unwieldy;
it is easy to crash the program or cause difficult-to-debug issues;
no "native" support for OO, GC, threads, ... (but are available as
libraries or can be implemented manually);
generally requires specialized build-files (Makefiles/...) and #ifdef
blocks for each OS it may run on.

Java, pros:
reasonably abstracted from OS (doesn't use, or natively support,
#ifdef);
can be ported to new targets without altering the source code or
recompiling;
is supported on most major OS's;
natively supports OO (unlike C);
relatively clean core syntax;
extensive standard libraries.

Java, cons:
limited access to the underlying OS;
can't easily use OpenGL, OpenAL, or DirectX;
very painful to interface with non-JVM languages (C, C++, C#, ...);
not well suited for heterogeneous systems (where available packages/
APIs differ from one target to another);
the core language is fairly sparse vs some other languages (such as C+
+ and C#), making it more often awkward to use by itself (without
using library classes);
there is no support for typedef or similar;
launching JAR's is funky on some OS's.

C++, pros:
many the same as C;
also has native OO support, and many other features (templates, RAII).

C++, cons:
many the same as C;
very complicated language design (its hair has grown hair);
absurdly long compile times (it takes around 15 minutes to recompile
Doom3 from source);
many "WTF?" design features and semantics in some cases;
good luck for a mere mortal to write a parser or compiler for it.


C#, pros:
well, it works nice on Windows;
Windows Forms;
fairly clean language design (vs C++).

C#, cons:
"sow's ear" or "lame duck" if not on Windows.

C++/CLI, pros:
well, it is like C++;
can directly access native C and C++ code;
it can access .NET and C# code;
it can use Windows Forms.

C++/CLI, cons:
hideous (IMHO);
wonky behavior and semantics (have to include headers, but namespace
visibility is automagical, managed and unmanaged classes are not
terribly orthogonal, ...);
seems to compile much slower than normal C++;
doesn't work on Linux/Mono (if using any normal C or C++ library
stuff).

and, for the hell of it, my own language (BGBScript):
pros:
has whatever features I want it to have (if one controls the language,
they can add features at their sole discretion);
nice interface with C;
is like JavaScript and ActionScript;
has eval and loads scripts from source;
I am mostly happy with the design;
...

cons:
very incomplete and buggy;
not yet usable for much of anything non-trivial;
limited portability;
damn near no documentation;
performance is a bit lacking;
AFAIK, I am the only user and sole developer (usual pet-project
limitation);
I wouldn't recommend it for anyone else for much more than
experimentation.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10551

On 11-12-06 02:52 AM, BGB wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:51 pm, dsnite...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Once you know one language, learning and development of other languages is a lot easier. Java as a entry level programming language is also better than say C variants because its object oriented, universal and beautiful.
>>
> 
> IMHO, Java is a C variant (or, at least, a C-family language).
> granted, my definition is wide enough here to where I loosely also
> consider JavaScript and ActionScript to be in this family as well.

 An extremely wide definition. :-) There are various lists of the "C
family of languages", some as short as half a dozen, some I've seen that
are 40 or 50 or 60, but JavaScript doesn't often feature even in the big
lists.

OTOH, what most people really mean by "C family of languages" is the
existence of curly braces. I'm only being somewhat facetious. A whole
bunch of languages that are considered to be "C family" borrow some
syntax, including curly braces, from C, but owe much more in semantics
to something other than C. So are they really in the "C family"?

> C++ is also Object Oriented, and is much closer to C, but IMHO, C++ is
> also a bit of a nasty complicated mess (and has additional drawbacks
> specific to my case), so I don't use it much.

Just my opinion, but C++ hasn't been "close" to C for years now. Not if
you're writing proper C++.

[ SNIP ]

> I am primarily a C developer, but also sometimes use Java, C#, C++/
> CLI, or my own custom language, depending on what I am doing. I am
> also not above using assembler if the task calls for it (rare, mostly
> esoteric compiler/VM stuff). I have also used Scheme and Common Lisp
> in the past as well.
> 
> sadly, there is no "perfect" language.
[ SNIP ]

No, there's not. Although often there is a "best" language, which is
dictated by factors such as programmer familiarity, what is the current
system written in, what does the client want...things like that. These
factors usually trump theoretical choices.

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web