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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26775 > unrolled thread

Re: Teaching Java, teaching what?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Teaching Java, teaching what? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-12-08 11:49 -0500
    Re: Teaching Java, teaching what? markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-12-08 11:03 -0800
      Re: Teaching Java, teaching what? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-12-08 22:26 -0500
        Re: Teaching Java, teaching what? "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-12-09 07:18 +0000

#26775 — Re: Teaching Java, teaching what?

On 12/8/2013 11:00 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>    Many Java classes and Java books teach Java foundations and
>    then Java OOP to finally be able to show how Swing can be
>    used to create programs that look like beginners expect
>    programs to look like, i.e., they do not write some text to
>    an old-fashioned text console, but run as a GUI windows.
>
>    But then, I hear everywhere: »Java on the Desktop is dead.«.
>    Now I asked myself: Is it wrong to teach how to write Java
>    desktop applications in a class (using Swing)? After all,
>    you do not want to waste the time of the students by
>    teaching them something that is »dead«?

     "Believe ninety percent of what you see, fifty percent of
what you read, and ten percent of what you hear."

     That was my father's dictum when I was quite young, long
before the Internet came along (had the Internet been around,
he would surely have moved "fifty percent" to a lower figure).
Anyhow, he'd have said that what you "hear everywhere" is only
ten percent reliable, so although you should pay it some heed
you shouldn't let it influence you too strongly.

     My own take (uninformed; peg this somewhere between the
ten- and fifty-percent level) is that Java applets have shown
themselves to be too dangerous for the lawless Net.  This does
not, however, equate to "Java on the desktop is dead."  Both
applets and Java Web Start *in a controlled environment* can
be safe and useful.  Use them on the inTRAnet if you like, as
a way to deploy in-house applications.  Also, Swing can put a
perfectly adequate (albeit not fancy) GUI on an application
launched from the desktop rather than in a browser, should you
wish to do so.

     Does this make a case for, or a case against, teaching Swing?
Sorry; for that question I don't have even a ten-percent answer.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26778

On 12/8/2013 8:49 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:

>      My own take (uninformed; peg this somewhere between the
> ten- and fifty-percent level) is that Java applets have shown
> themselves to be too dangerous for the lawless Net.  This does

Just to toss in my own two nickels, I don't believe that applets are 
inherently more dangerous than Adobe Flash or JavaScript.  The major 
problems with applets lately was Oracle was slow to addressing security 
issues.  That's really a problem for any internet connected computer or 
program.  Heck Windows OS wasn't exactly known for its security on the 
'net a few years ago.

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

#26793

On 12/8/2013 2:03 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 12/8/2013 8:49 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>>      My own take (uninformed; peg this somewhere between the
>> ten- and fifty-percent level) is that Java applets have shown
>> themselves to be too dangerous for the lawless Net.  This does
>
> Just to toss in my own two nickels, I don't believe that applets are
> inherently more dangerous than Adobe Flash or JavaScript.  The major
> problems with applets lately was Oracle was slow to addressing security
> issues.  That's really a problem for any internet connected computer or
> program.  Heck Windows OS wasn't exactly known for its security on the
> 'net a few years ago.

I mostly agree.

Executing code downloaded from the internet is very tricky
security wise.

And alternatives like Flash, SilverLigth and JavaScript has
certainly had their security vulnerabilities as well.

I do think Java applets has a few extra features that
may have contributed to the problems:
* the ability to be allowed privs by user
* full API

Arne

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

#26794

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> I do think Java applets has a few extra features that
> may have contributed to the problems:
> * the ability to be allowed privs by user
> * full API

Also a security model that defaults to insecure, in the sense that the platform 
implementers have to get some pretty tricky code right every time to avoid 
leaving loopholes.  Which they haven't always done.

Not suggesting that the immediate competition is any better (though it may be 
for all I know), but in retrospect Java's security ambitions weren't backed by 
a sufficiently radical implementation/architecture.

    -- chris 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web