Re: The Revenge of the Geeks

From: Arne Vajhøj <arne_at_vajhoej.dk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:06:53 -0500
Message-ID: <51015c23$0$289$14726298_at_news.sunsite.dk>

On 1/23/2013 11:47 PM, BGB wrote:

> 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...

Yes. But then Java may not be the obvious choice.

> 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.

Yes.

Java is probably almost non-existing on the graphical side.

I believe some multi-player games use Java server side.

>> 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, ...

WinForms was supplemented with a slight taste of replaced with WPF 7 years ago.

>>>> 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.

No - Java EE does not necessarily cost money. JBoss, Tomcat etc. can be used for free.

Java EE is server side. Client side will typical be browser, but can in theory also be a Java SE desktop app or a .NET/native desktop app.

> 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,

In the EE space you would need to look at CORBA or DCOM.

You would prefer Java EE believe me.

:-)

Arne Received on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 17:06:53 CET