[ale] OT: So what about Java?

[cfowler]

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 09:44, John Wells wrote:
> Jeff Hubbs said:
> > Is there anything about this Java mini-universe that simply cannot be
> > accomplished through other means that are not tightly tied to one
> > company or any company at all?
> 
> No.  But then again, there's nothing that can be done in any language
> that can't be done in assembly, or machine code for that matter, with a
> *lot* of extra effort.  Java makes it *easier* to do lots of things,
> imho, but can make it harder to do certain things.  It benefits from
> being a truly object-oriented language, but it suffers from being
> cross-platform in many cases...particularly for desktop apps.  If Sun ever
> realizes that they could make a lot of people happy by creating a
> bytecode-to-machine code compiler, Java will move a step up in my eyes.
> Of course, solutions currently exist (gcj will do it), but it's no easy
> task.  It's not always beneficial to be write-once-run-anywhere, and there
> have been many times I've longed for write-once-compile-anywhe

gcj had a library, I believe libgcj that is bascically a compiled byte
code interperter.  Its kinda like a jvm wrapped up with some other
stuff.  The HelloWorld.java is still not native.  It is like the perl
compiler.  Where it simply wraps up the script + perl into a binary that
What needs to happen is true HelloJava.java -> ELF executable. This has
not happened yet.

> 
> For BIG applications, Java is a great language, can make your life
> easier, and you can really realize the benefits of modularization and
> reuse.
> 
> Another thing Java suffers from imo is bloat, in that there's about 200
> ways to do one particular thing.  Kinda similar to Perl, but a bigger
> research curve.  Each of these 200 ways requires a cascading jaunt
> through javadocs and online tutorials and can lengthen your
> design/development time substantially if you're by nature indecisive.

Bloat is right.  Many of my smallest utilities and apps can spawn 7
threads and use 10m or more of memory.

> The *best* way is not always evident, and solutions typically
> implemented are "the best way we found in a few days research".  There
> are so many paths to go down in the Java world, it's very difficult to
> have exposure to all, and I've more than once designed a rather elegant
> solution to a problem, only to find a few weeks later there were libs
> out there to handle it for me.
> 
> > I am old-school enough that I distrust languages that are not created
> > independently from any corporate interest.  I guess I had a bit of an
> > "ah-ha moment" WAAAAY back when I was first studying Pascal in the
> > 1980s - that a programming language can be committed to international
> > standardization  with all platform-specific implementations being
> > subservient to those standards, to the point that implementers would
> > run serious political and market-share risks if they "broke" their
> > implementation of a given language.
> 
> Can't speak for Sun, but at least by appearances they are very friendly
> with Open Source.  The jakarta project, for instance, is Sun-driven and
> provides a number of solutions that are open source.
> 
> However, Sun is a corporation, so I share your mistrust.  Their sole
> reason for existence is to further their stock holders wealth, and I'm
> sure that when it came down to that vs. a decision that would be good
> for the community, they'd go with the former.  I recall a big stink a
> year ago between Sun and JBoss in that Sun refused to acknowledge them
> as a true certified J2EE server
> (http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2002/03/20/jboss_interview.html) and
> recall that the Sun's argument was weak and left a bad taste in my
> mouth, but I don't recall the arguments now.  The article above provides
> links to a large portion of the story.  I need to re-read it myself.
> 
> I think Sun is aligning itself with the Open Source community for
> strategic, rather that altruistic, reasons.  Sun has no way to compete
> with Microsoft if it doesn't have a rather large army behind it, and the
> open source community has an overwhelming amount of available troops.
> My suspicion is that Sun is probably not doing it for the right reasons,
> but that their paricipation up to this point has helped, rather than
> hindered, the acceptance of open source technologies and has helped to
> legitamize the open source movement.
> 
> Course, it wouldn't surprise me if that changes in the future.
> 
> In the meantime, I think learning Java, and the solutions out there for
> Java that are open source, is worthwhile, interesting, and can further
> your career.  I'd recommend jumping on the bandwagon, but keeping your
> BS meter at high alert and a pack of gum in your pocket (to fight that
> taste of bile that occasionally creeps up your throat).

I like Java and I hate Java.  I wish that Java and C could merger to
create a truly fast, efficient, and true 100% OOP language.  Don't say
Ruby. 

I do like not worrying about the memory management of java but I hate
the waste it does.  But I can create stuff fast and cross-platform.

> 
> As Geoffrey mentioned, they're not Microsoft...yet.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale