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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #31465 > unrolled thread

Re: Return of the Applets?

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: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 09:46 -0400
    Re: Return of the Applets? Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-05 13:12 -0400
    Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 15:14 -0400
      Re: Return of the Applets? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-04-05 16:41 -0400
        Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 16:54 -0400
          Re: Return of the Applets? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-04-05 17:08 -0400
            Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 17:17 -0400
              Re: Return of the Applets? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-04-05 17:30 -0400
                Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 17:42 -0400
                  Re: Return of the Applets? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-04-05 17:52 -0400
                    Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-05 18:17 -0400
                      Re: Return of the Applets? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2015-04-06 11:26 +0200
      Re: Return of the Applets? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2015-04-06 13:23 -0500
        Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-06 15:09 -0400
          Re: Return of the Applets? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2015-04-06 17:33 -0500
            Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-06 17:44 -0400
              Re: Return of the Applets? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2015-04-06 19:10 -0500
                Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-06 20:03 -0400
                  Re: Return of the Applets? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2015-04-06 21:36 -0500
                    Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 09:11 -0400
              Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-06 23:25 +0000
                Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-06 19:59 -0400
                  Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-07 13:29 +0000
                    Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 10:45 -0400
                      Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-07 15:51 +0000
                        Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 13:16 -0400
                          Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-07 20:22 +0000
                            Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 17:03 -0400
                      Re: Return of the Applets? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@huldreskog.localdomain> - 2015-04-07 11:34 -0500
                        Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 13:18 -0400
                          Re: Return of the Applets? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@huldreskog.localdomain> - 2015-04-07 12:40 -0500
                            Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 17:06 -0400
                          Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-07 20:28 +0000
                            Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 17:11 -0400
                              Re: Return of the Applets? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:00 +0000
                                Re: Return of the Applets? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-07 19:25 -0400
    Re: Return of the Applets? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2015-04-06 13:09 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#31465 — Re: Return of the Applets?

On 4/5/2015 12:09 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>   Android apps are now running in the Chrome browser. What does
>   this remind me of?
> 
>   Let me remind you that Android apps are written in Java,
>   kind of, not Java SE, and, IIRC, not Java 8. But a kind of Java.
> 
>   Then, the browser must contain an emulator that runs Linux
>   where an app runs as a separate user with restricted rights
>   and within a sandbox. The security here might be better than
>   the security of the JVM, because the walls seem to be thicker.
> 
>   But the advantage of JavaScript is that it can interact with
>   a web page of flexible size, while both applets and apps run
>   in a rectangle of a fixed size, which does not blend in well
>   with responsive web design.
> 

You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.

The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31468

On 04/05/2015 09:46 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 12:09 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>    Android apps are now running in the Chrome browser. What does
>>    this remind me of?
>>
>>    Let me remind you that Android apps are written in Java,
>>    kind of, not Java SE, and, IIRC, not Java 8. But a kind of Java.
>>
>>    Then, the browser must contain an emulator that runs Linux
>>    where an app runs as a separate user with restricted rights
>>    and within a sandbox. The security here might be better than
>>    the security of the JVM, because the walls seem to be thicker.
>>
>>    But the advantage of JavaScript is that it can interact with
>>    a web page of flexible size, while both applets and apps run
>>    in a rectangle of a fixed size, which does not blend in well
>>    with responsive web design.
>>
>
> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>
> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.
>
Sounds to me like he's discussing fruit in a box.
Could even throw in some cherries.

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

#31472

On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
> 
>   That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
> 
>   But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>

No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and oranges.

>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.
> 
>   But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
> 
>       - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
> 

So?  FORTRAN and COBOL were both trademarks of IBM at one time.

>       - JavaScript was designed by Brendan Eich who wrote:
> 
>           »The diktat from upper engineering management
>           was that the language must "look like Java".«
> 

So what?

>       - of course the syntax and semantics of both
>         languages have a lot in common (I am giving courses
>         in both languages and my course notes for both Java
>         and JavaScript can be read in the web, albeit in
>         German language).
> 

So do the syntax and semantics of Java and C++.  That doesn't mean they
are related.

>       - JavaScript is a part of Java in the sense that every
>         Oracle JDK contains a JavaScript interpreter, so one
>         can use JavaScript to do just what the name suggests:
>         to script Java programs.
> 

So what?  You can also use JavaScript to script C++ programs - or even
COBOL programs.

>       - when running in the browser, the LiveConnect
>         technology allows Java and JavaScript code
>         to communicate with each other. 
> 

Sure.  And JavaScript and PHP can also communicate with each other.  So
can JavaScript and C# and many other languages.

>       - In today's web, JavaScript often complements Java,
>         with JavaScript running on the client and Java running
>         on the server.
> 

JavaScript also often compliments PHP, Python, Perl, C# and many other
languages.  So I guess they are related also.

>       - depending on the source used, sometimes Java and
>         sometimes JavaScript is the most-often used
>         programming language.
> 

Java is far from "the most-often used programming language" - and never
has been (COBOL has been #1 for over 50 years, and continues in that
position at an estimated 2 billion LOC written each year).  Java doesn't
even come close, and JavaScript is basically web pages.

Now if you want to talk web pages - JavaScript is used on a lot of them
- but Java is nowhere near the top even there.  PHP, Python and C# (not
necessarily in that order) lead the way.

It is clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about - and
the more you continue in this way, the more you prove that point.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31473

On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>>
>>    That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>
>>    But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>
> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and oranges.

Yes.

They were compared as languages for running code in browser.

A perfectly valid comparison.

Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.

None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript discussion
into the picture.

>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.
>>
>>    But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>
>>        - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>
> So?

It proves that your claim:

#The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.

is wrong.

Arne

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

#31474

On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>>>
>>>    That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>
>>>    But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>
>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>> oranges.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
> 
> A perfectly valid comparison.
>

But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension, loaded
by the browser.

As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.

A very important distinction.

And that is just the beginning of the differences.

> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
> 
> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript discussion
> into the picture.
>

It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
different goals and different implementations.

>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>> "a"s.
>>>
>>>    But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>
>>>        - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>
>> So?
> 
> It proves that your claim:
> 
> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.
> 
> is wrong.
> 
> Arne
> 

So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.  But I seem to
remember similar types of comments on comp.database.mysql.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31476

On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>>>>
>>>>     That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>
>>>>     But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>
>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>> oranges.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>
>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>
>
> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension, loaded
> by the browser.
>
> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>
> A very important distinction.

A relevant distinction in some contexts.

But not relevant in this context.

The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support RWS.


>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>
>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript discussion
>> into the picture.
>
> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
> different goals and different implementations.

So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??

I would not.

Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.

>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>
>>>>     But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>>
>>>>         - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> It proves that your claim:
>>
>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two "a"s.
>>
>> is wrong.
>
> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.

Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
claims made are flat out wrong??

Arne

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

#31477

On 4/5/2015 5:08 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>>     That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>>
>>>>>     But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>>
>>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>>> oranges.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>>
>>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>>
>>
>> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension, loaded
>> by the browser.
>>
>> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>>
>> A very important distinction.
> 
> A relevant distinction in some contexts.
> 
> But not relevant in this context.
> 
> The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support RWS.
>

100% relevant in this conversation - but since it contradicts your
argument, you have to claim it's unimportant.

> 
>>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
>>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>>
>>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript discussion
>>> into the picture.
>>
>> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
>> different goals and different implementations.
> 
> So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
> then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??
> 
> I would not.
> 
> Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.
> 

Yes they are.  However, they are much closer to each other than Java and
JavaScript are.  At least the two have the same goals, while Java and
JavaScript do not.

>>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>
>>>>>     But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>>>
>>>>>         - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>
>>> It proves that your claim:
>>>
>>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>> "a"s.
>>>
>>> is wrong.
>>
>> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.
> 
> Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
> claims made are flat out wrong??
> 
> Arne
> 

When you split hairs to contradict a bigger point.  It's a mark of a
pedantic troll.

But as I said (and you snipped), you've done this before in at least one
other newsgroup.  No surprises here.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31479

On 4/5/2015 5:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 5:08 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>>>> oranges.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>>>
>>>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension, loaded
>>> by the browser.
>>>
>>> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>>>
>>> A very important distinction.
>>
>> A relevant distinction in some contexts.
>>
>> But not relevant in this context.
>>
>> The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support RWS.
>>
>
> 100% relevant in this conversation - but since it contradicts your
> argument, you have to claim it's unimportant.

So how does the the fact that JavaScript comes from the browser vendor
while the Java plugin comes from Oracle impact the Stefan's conclusion
about support for RWD and what it means for Java?

>>>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
>>>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>>>
>>>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript discussion
>>>> into the picture.
>>>
>>> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
>>> different goals and different implementations.
>>
>> So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
>> then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??
>>
>> I would not.
>>
>> Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.
>
> Yes they are.

Did you read the question?

>>>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> It proves that your claim:
>>>>
>>>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>> "a"s.
>>>>
>>>> is wrong.
>>>
>>> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.
>>
>> Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
>> claims made are flat out wrong??
>
> When you split hairs to contradict a bigger point.  It's a mark of a
> pedantic troll.

You started a completely irrelevant sub-thread. And it is splitting
hairs to point out that besides irrelevant then it was also wrong.

:-)

Arne

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

#31480

On 4/5/2015 5:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 5:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 5:08 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different
>>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>>>>> oranges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension,
>>>> loaded
>>>> by the browser.
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>>>>
>>>> A very important distinction.
>>>
>>> A relevant distinction in some contexts.
>>>
>>> But not relevant in this context.
>>>
>>> The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support
>>> RWS.
>>>
>>
>> 100% relevant in this conversation - but since it contradicts your
>> argument, you have to claim it's unimportant.
> 
> So how does the the fact that JavaScript comes from the browser vendor
> while the Java plugin comes from Oracle impact the Stefan's conclusion
> about support for RWD and what it means for Java?
> 
>>>>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
>>>>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> into the picture.
>>>>
>>>> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
>>>> different goals and different implementations.
>>>
>>> So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
>>> then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??
>>>
>>> I would not.
>>>
>>> Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.
>>
>> Yes they are.
> 
> Did you read the question?
>

Yes, I read the question.  Did YOU?  Or, more importantly - are you
capable of UNDERSTANDING the claims?  It doesn't look like it.

>>>>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> It proves that your claim:
>>>>>
>>>>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.
>>>
>>> Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
>>> claims made are flat out wrong??
>>
>> When you split hairs to contradict a bigger point.  It's a mark of a
>> pedantic troll.
> 
> You started a completely irrelevant sub-thread. And it is splitting
> hairs to point out that besides irrelevant then it was also wrong.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Arne
> 

Nope, it was completely relevant to the subject at hand.  But you don't
understand that.

But then another indicator of a pedantic troll is selectively snipping
information which contradicts what her has to say.  Like you did (again)
here.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31481

On 4/5/2015 5:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 5:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 5:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 5:08 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or vice
>>>>>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different
>>>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>>>>>> oranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension,
>>>>> loaded
>>>>> by the browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>>>>>
>>>>> A very important distinction.
>>>>
>>>> A relevant distinction in some contexts.
>>>>
>>>> But not relevant in this context.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support
>>>> RWS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 100% relevant in this conversation - but since it contradicts your
>>> argument, you have to claim it's unimportant.
>>
>> So how does the the fact that JavaScript comes from the browser vendor
>> while the Java plugin comes from Oracle impact the Stefan's conclusion
>> about support for RWD and what it means for Java?

I can understand that you don't want to try to explain that.

>>>>>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid comparsion
>>>>>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> into the picture.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
>>>>> different goals and different implementations.
>>>>
>>>> So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
>>>> then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??
>>>>
>>>> I would not.
>>>>
>>>> Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.
>>>
>>> Yes they are.
>>
>> Did you read the question?
>>
>
> Yes, I read the question.  Did YOU?  Or, more importantly - are you
> capable of UNDERSTANDING the claims?  It doesn't look like it.

Question: So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific 
context then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??

Answer: Yes they are.

The question was about what you would do. So an answer to the question
would either be that you would do it or that you you would not do it.
The question was not whether it was two different languages.

>>>>>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       But since you insist, let me give you some factual information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It proves that your claim:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.
>>>>
>>>> Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
>>>> claims made are flat out wrong??
>>>
>>> When you split hairs to contradict a bigger point.  It's a mark of a
>>> pedantic troll.
>>
>> You started a completely irrelevant sub-thread. And it is splitting
>> hairs to point out that besides irrelevant then it was also wrong.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Nope, it was completely relevant to the subject at hand.  But you don't
> understand that.
>
> But then another indicator of a pedantic troll is selectively snipping
> information which contradicts what her has to say.  Like you did (again)
> here.

I believe I only snipped signature and your remarks about another group
which I don't think provide any substance in this discussion.

Arne

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

#31482

On 4/5/2015 5:52 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 5:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 5:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2015 5:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2015 5:08 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2015 4:54 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 4:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 3:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2015 1:31 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> You're mixing apples and oranges.  Java is NOT JavaScript - or
>>>>>>>>>> vice
>>>>>>>>>> versa.  They are two different languages with two different
>>>>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       That must be some kind of reflex some people can't control!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       But no one has claimed that Java was JavaScript. Relax.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but you are comparing them - which is like comparing apples and
>>>>>>>> oranges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were compared as languages for running code in browser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A perfectly valid comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Java does not "run in the browser".  It runs in an extension,
>>>>>> loaded
>>>>>> by the browser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to JavaScript - which runs natively in most browsers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A very important distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>> A relevant distinction in some contexts.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not relevant in this context.
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion was about access to screen and the ability to support
>>>>> RWS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 100% relevant in this conversation - but since it contradicts your
>>>> argument, you have to claim it's unimportant.
>>>
>>> So how does the the fact that JavaScript comes from the browser vendor
>>> while the Java plugin comes from Oracle impact the Stefan's conclusion
>>> about support for RWD and what it means for Java?
> 
> I can understand that you don't want to try to explain that.
>

I can understand why you don't see what is a major difference.

>>>>>>> Just like comparing apples and oranges is a perfectly valid
>>>>>>> comparsion
>>>>>>> when discussing what fruits you think taste the best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of which explains why you brought the Java != JavaScript
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> into the picture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does when you're comparing two entirely different languages with
>>>>>> different goals and different implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific context
>>>>> then you also want to point out that it is two different languages??
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither for those two or for Java and JavaScript.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they are.
>>>
>>> Did you read the question?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I read the question.  Did YOU?  Or, more importantly - are you
>> capable of UNDERSTANDING the claims?  It doesn't look like it.
> 
> Question: So if someone is comparing C++ and objective-C in a specific
> context then you also want to point out that it is two different
> languages??
> 
> Answer: Yes they are.
> 
> The question was about what you would do. So an answer to the question
> would either be that you would do it or that you you would not do it.
> The question was not whether it was two different languages.
> 

Which is what I answered.  I tried to make it so simple even YOU could
understand that - but I see I failed there, also.

>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v"
>>>>>>>>>> and two
>>>>>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       But since you insist, let me give you some factual
>>>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           - Both are trademarks of Oracle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It proves that your claim:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #The ONLY thing they have in common are the letters "J", "v" and two
>>>>>>> "a"s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I guess you're just being a pedantic troll than, Arne.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when has it been considered trolling to point out that
>>>>> claims made are flat out wrong??
>>>>
>>>> When you split hairs to contradict a bigger point.  It's a mark of a
>>>> pedantic troll.
>>>
>>> You started a completely irrelevant sub-thread. And it is splitting
>>> hairs to point out that besides irrelevant then it was also wrong.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Nope, it was completely relevant to the subject at hand.  But you don't
>> understand that.
>>
>> But then another indicator of a pedantic troll is selectively snipping
>> information which contradicts what her has to say.  Like you did (again)
>> here.
> 
> I believe I only snipped signature and your remarks about another group
> which I don't think provide any substance in this discussion.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

You snipped more than that.  But then I wouldn't expect you to admit to it.

And mentioning that you are known as a pedantic troll in at least one
other newsgroup is definitely pertinent to any discussion where you are
acting in a similar manner.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31489

On 6-4-2015 00:17, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 5:52 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:


> .......  But then I wouldn't expect you to admit to it.
>
> And mentioning that you are known as a pedantic troll in at least one
> other newsgroup is definitely pertinent to any discussion where you are
> acting in a similar manner.
>


Stop discussing who is right, or wrong, that is OFF-TOPIC here.....


;)

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

#31497

On 4/5/2015 2:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Java is far from "the most-often used programming language" - and never
> has been (COBOL has been #1 for over 50 years, and continues in that
> position at an estimated 2 billion LOC written each year).  Java doesn't
> even come close, and JavaScript is basically web pages.

It depends on your metric. The most widely consumed benchmark I'm aware 
of is TIOBE which measures, broadly speaking, search engine results for 
various languages, and Java consistently ranked highest there for 
several years.

Of course, the most widely-used programming language is indisputably 
Excel spreadsheets. Not the VB macros in spreadsheets, but the 
spreadsheets themselves. :-)

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#31498

On 4/6/2015 2:23 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 2:14 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Java is far from "the most-often used programming language" - and never
>> has been (COBOL has been #1 for over 50 years, and continues in that
>> position at an estimated 2 billion LOC written each year).  Java doesn't
>> even come close, and JavaScript is basically web pages.
> 
> It depends on your metric. The most widely consumed benchmark I'm aware
> of is TIOBE which measures, broadly speaking, search engine results for
> various languages, and Java consistently ranked highest there for
> several years.
> 
> Of course, the most widely-used programming language is indisputably
> Excel spreadsheets. Not the VB macros in spreadsheets, but the
> spreadsheets themselves. :-)
> 

The only valid measurement for how popular a language is has always been
lines of code written.  Of course, you can come up with any metric you
want - number of jobs advertised, number of classes offered, search
engine results or whatever.  But when it comes down to the actual
writing of code, LOC is considered the measurement.  And for years,
COBOL has been #1, with RPG close behind.

No, you won't find a lot of COBOL on the internet.  It's used by large
businesses worldwide on mainframes and mid-sized computers.  But there
are organizations such as IEEE which survey companies, large and small,
to estimate the number of LOC produced in each language every year.

And an Excel spreadsheet is not considered by anyone (even Microsoft) to
be a programming language.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31499

On 4/6/2015 2:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The only valid measurement for how popular a language is has always been
> lines of code written.  Of course, you can come up with any metric you
> want - number of jobs advertised, number of classes offered, search
> engine results or whatever.  But when it comes down to the actual
> writing of code, LOC is considered the measurement.  And for years,
> COBOL has been #1, with RPG close behind.

Nope, LOC is not necessarily a good metric--one line of APL does far 
more work than one line of assembly (and certainly takes more man-hours 
to write). There's also no consistent definition of LOC.

I also hard it find to believe that more COBOL was written in 2014 than 
Java or C--given that there is at least an order of magnitude more job 
openings for the latter, that would imply that COBOL programmers are an 
order of magnitude more productive than Java programmers. I tried 
looking up a possible reference, but I came to a citation of a page 
which didn't include the number of new lines of code that also lists a 
copyright date of 1996 (and a "best viewed with Netscape 3.0" button).

> And an Excel spreadsheet is not considered by anyone (even Microsoft) to
> be a programming language.

<http://webguide.cs.colorado.edu:3232/dlc-2006/uploads/63/end-user%20software%20engineering%20with%20assertions%20in%20the%20speradsheet%20paradigm.pdf> 
is the first research paper I found after about 2 seconds of searching. 
Just search for "spreadsheet engineering," and you'll find several 
papers that treat spreadsheets as programming languages with the worst 
IDEs imaginable.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#31500

On 4/6/2015 6:33 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 4/6/2015 2:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The only valid measurement for how popular a language is has always been
>> lines of code written.  Of course, you can come up with any metric you
>> want - number of jobs advertised, number of classes offered, search
>> engine results or whatever.  But when it comes down to the actual
>> writing of code, LOC is considered the measurement.  And for years,
>> COBOL has been #1, with RPG close behind.
> 
> Nope, LOC is not necessarily a good metric--one line of APL does far
> more work than one line of assembly (and certainly takes more man-hours
> to write). There's also no consistent definition of LOC.
> 
> I also hard it find to believe that more COBOL was written in 2014 than
> Java or C--given that there is at least an order of magnitude more job
> openings for the latter, that would imply that COBOL programmers are an
> order of magnitude more productive than Java programmers. I tried
> looking up a possible reference, but I came to a citation of a page
> which didn't include the number of new lines of code that also lists a
> copyright date of 1996 (and a "best viewed with Netscape 3.0" button).
> 
>> And an Excel spreadsheet is not considered by anyone (even Microsoft) to
>> be a programming language.
> 
> <http://webguide.cs.colorado.edu:3232/dlc-2006/uploads/63/end-user%20software%20engineering%20with%20assertions%20in%20the%20speradsheet%20paradigm.pdf>
> is the first research paper I found after about 2 seconds of searching.
> Just search for "spreadsheet engineering," and you'll find several
> papers that treat spreadsheets as programming languages with the worst
> IDEs imaginable.
> 

LOC has been used as a measurement standard for the 47+ years I've been
programming.  You may not think it's a good measurement, but the experts
in the field pretty much all agree on it.

And job openings is NOT a good measure of how much code is written.  The
typical COBOL programmer works for a large company with good benefits
and a stable work environment.  And when they need programmers, these
companies do not advertise on Craig's List.

In fact, I would say the number of Java job openings is an indication of
a poor work environment - there's way too much turnover in the market.

And I don't see a single place in your reference where Excel is
considered a programming language.  It does support macros and
expressions - but it is not a programming language in itself.  Not the
mention the fact the authors are completely unknown in the programming
world.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31502

On 4/6/2015 4:44 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> LOC has been used as a measurement standard for the 47+ years I've been
> programming.  You may not think it's a good measurement, but the experts
> in the field pretty much all agree on it.

I don't dispute that it's a measurement standard (well, family of 
standards--LOC measurements, in my experience, vary slightly in how the 
treat things like multiple C statements on one line, comments, 
whitespace, etc.). I do dispute that it is a good metric of comparison, 
although, in all fairness, collecting any reliable information is 
virtually impossible.

> And I don't see a single place in your reference where Excel is
> considered a programming language.  It does support macros and
> expressions - but it is not a programming language in itself.  Not the
> mention the fact the authors are completely unknown in the programming
> world.

I literally provided the first link I found in a Google search. A better 
link (I went to talk by the primary author) is here: 
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6405299&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6405299>. 
Said person is definitely not unknown in the academic world.

I've now given two references for my claims--and you've given 0 for your 
claims.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#31506

On 4/6/2015 8:10 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 4/6/2015 4:44 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> LOC has been used as a measurement standard for the 47+ years I've been
>> programming.  You may not think it's a good measurement, but the experts
>> in the field pretty much all agree on it.
> 
> I don't dispute that it's a measurement standard (well, family of
> standards--LOC measurements, in my experience, vary slightly in how the
> treat things like multiple C statements on one line, comments,
> whitespace, etc.). I do dispute that it is a good metric of comparison,
> although, in all fairness, collecting any reliable information is
> virtually impossible.
>

Whether you dispute it or not is immaterial.  It is the metric that has
been used by experts for years.

What you don't understand it - while every languages has advantages in
some areas, every language also has disadvantages in some areas.  The
two have a tendency to average out over the course of a large number of
programs.

>> And I don't see a single place in your reference where Excel is
>> considered a programming language.  It does support macros and
>> expressions - but it is not a programming language in itself.  Not the
>> mention the fact the authors are completely unknown in the programming
>> world.
> 
> I literally provided the first link I found in a Google search. A better
> link (I went to talk by the primary author) is here:
> <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6405299&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6405299>.
> Said person is definitely not unknown in the academic world.
> 
> I've now given two references for my claims--and you've given 0 for your
> claims.
> 

Which still does not say that spreadsheets are programming languages.
And it's impossible to provide references to something which is not true.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#31514

On 4/6/2015 7:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> What you don't understand it - while every languages has advantages in
> some areas, every language also has disadvantages in some areas.  The
> two have a tendency to average out over the course of a large number of
> programs.

If you were to claim that the plurality of existing software were coded 
in COBOL by some reasonable metric (including LOC), I would be skeptical 
of that claim without references, but I would not find it unbelievable 
(I personally think that threshold was crossed by Java, C#, C, or C++ 
sometime in the last in 15 years, but I have no evidence to back it up). 
Certainly, I won't dispute that a large body of extant COBOL code exists.

The claim I've objected to is not that COBOL is present in extant code, 
but rather that COBOL is the most-used language in terms of new code 
being added each year. I don't have any hard evidence of that, but there 
is circumstantial evidence to support it: other languages being more 
prevalent in academic curricula, more job advertisements, more resources 
being available, the fact that even major COBOL-users mostly limit their 
use of COBOL to maintenance of existing applications and use newer 
languages for new middleware/backend applications, etc.

> Which still does not say that spreadsheets are programming languages.
> And it's impossible to provide references to something which is not true.

It refers specifically to "The number of end-users who write spreadsheet 
programs"--if spreadsheets are programs, then what are the formulas in 
them if not code written in a spreadsheet programming language?

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#31516

On 4/6/2015 10:36 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 4/6/2015 7:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> What you don't understand it - while every languages has advantages in
>> some areas, every language also has disadvantages in some areas.  The
>> two have a tendency to average out over the course of a large number of
>> programs.
> 
> If you were to claim that the plurality of existing software were coded
> in COBOL by some reasonable metric (including LOC), I would be skeptical
> of that claim without references, but I would not find it unbelievable
> (I personally think that threshold was crossed by Java, C#, C, or C++
> sometime in the last in 15 years, but I have no evidence to back it up).
> Certainly, I won't dispute that a large body of extant COBOL code exists.
>
> The claim I've objected to is not that COBOL is present in extant code,
> but rather that COBOL is the most-used language in terms of new code
> being added each year. I don't have any hard evidence of that, but there
> is circumstantial evidence to support it: other languages being more
> prevalent in academic curricula, more job advertisements, more resources
> being available, the fact that even major COBOL-users mostly limit their
> use of COBOL to maintenance of existing applications and use newer
> languages for new middleware/backend applications, etc.
>


Every state government in the U.S. has dozens of COBOL programmers;
larger states have hundreds.  The Federal government has thousands of
them - several hundred in the IRS alone.  Most other governments around
the world also use COBOL heavily.

Add to that every bank and credit union I have heard of uses COBOL, and
large ones have hundreds of COBOL programmers.  The same is true with
insurance companies and other financial services companies.  And that is
just the start.

Some of the programmers maintain current code - but the majority of the
work is writing new code.  For instance, the medical insurance companies
had huge jobs to implement code supporting the Obama Care.  And every
company had to code their own implementation.

All in all, there are a huge number of COBOL programmers out there, with
the vast majority in long-term, stable jobs.  And when the companies are
looking for new talent, they're often looking at University job fairs
and the like.  Many also use recruiters who specialize in the field.
But you won't find them on Craig's List.

And BTW, two billion lines of code per year is considered by most
experts to be fairly accurate but some think the figure is too low.  The
last figures I got were a year ago from an IEEE study; I haven't seen
figures this year but COBOL had such a lead there is no way Java or any
other language could catch up in a year.


>> Which still does not say that spreadsheets are programming languages.
>> And it's impossible to provide references to something which is not true.
> 
> It refers specifically to "The number of end-users who write spreadsheet
> programs"--if spreadsheets are programs, then what are the formulas in
> them if not code written in a spreadsheet programming language?
> 

The forumlae in spreadsheets are exactly that - they are formulae.  They
are not a programming language.  Macros are a type of programming
language, I will agree.  But few users write macros, and the majority of
the macros which are written are very simple.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web