Re: The Revenge of the Geeks
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:47:29 -0600
Message-ID: <kdqefr$k6n$1_at_news.albasani.net>
On 1/23/2013 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it
>>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise
>>>>> edition"
>>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on
>>>>> streamlining the language itself.
>>>>
>>>> much agreed...
>>>>
>>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my
>>>> bigger complaints about Java at present.
>>>>
>>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language
>>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks.
>>>
>>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so
>>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've
>>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better
>>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the
>>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation
>>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM
>>> options now.
>>>
>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core
>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java
>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's
>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE
>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency.
>> >> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make >> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >> say, C++ or C#. > > I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then > C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good > at. >
some of us never go anywhere near business apps though...
for example, I am mostly at-present a game developer, with side areas in audio/video processing (writing codecs, ...), and am also into things like compilers and scripting VM technology.
these are generally areas where C and C++ have a much stronger hold.
> C# is a pretty good language.
>
in general, yes, it is ok.
its main selling points IMO are its reasonably fast compile times and ease of quickly throwing together GUIs in WinForms, ...
well, and also IntelliSense works in Visual Studio, but this ranges between helpful and very annoying.
>>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of
>>> what other people have written: libraries.
>>>
>> >> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >> libraries none-the-less... > > Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. >
AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most end-users have Java SE installed.
but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD), and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, although GPL has some of its own issues (can't really use GPL'ed code in developing proprietary software, ...). Received on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 05:47:29 CET