> Actually, I don't agree with your use of "slow" with the apps you mentioned. > Eclipse is very snappy... I've not seen any difference in it over any other > native IDE. Netbeans on the other hand I have found sluggish at times, but > is usually snappy. Azureus is built on the same underpinnings that Eclipse > is built on, which if you don't know, IBM built their own GUI toolkit > because they felt Swing/AWT was too slow. Those are good examples of > perhaps the two most popular Java client applications out there, and both > are very solid. I've seen many native apps more sluggish and crash than > either of those apps, so they weren't good examples. Tomcat.. it's a server > app.. I am not sure what it slow about it? >
Eclipse is not snappy, at all. Not even close. KDevelop is snappy. XCode is snappy enough. Azureus is slow too, you have to really tune the settings to get some decent performance, same with Eclipse. Never used Tomcat? It can slow a server to a crawl with just a few processes. Not all of us can afford top of the line computers in order to run some software that runs fast in other programming languages. > There are no doubt MANY slow java apps, and yes, for the most part you have > to know how to develop a smooth running GUI app (Swing in this case). The > truth is, the majority of developers that are tasked with such apps have no > clue what they are doing and learn while doing.. usually releasing a not so > great application. I will admit, I was one of those... I was learning Swing > while working on an application. I didn't know a lot about the Swing event > thread, threads in general, and it could be seen in my app. I eventually > adopted a plugin model that I built from the ground up and got things > working a lot smoother, but it took a while to really learn the "tricks" of > Swing, class loading, and threading within a Swing app. > Yes, the java JVM works nicely in a server environment. Again, for your standard server applications. Subtle things in the GC process (as previously explained) make it too slow optimal performance. Then again, I use erlang so I'm spoiled. Nothing like being able to seamlessly interconnect vms. The GUI case, it's a myth, at least it's not as nice as it sounds. For once, the java GUIs are ugly and don't conform to the OSs standard look and feel. Not only does it look ugly, but it's slow. I'd rather have a few macros and use C++ with wxWidgets or QT and have a fast app, with a native look and feel. The IBM widget kit isn't significantly faster or efficient than the Swig one. > I don't believe this is why google made their own VM. From what I > understood, they made it to reduce the footprint and Jave ME wasn't good > enough. A little fact.. until Froyo... Android OS was slower than Jave ME on > older hardware. It's only with Froyo and the JIT they include with it that > apps are really starting to become speedy. That's not to say Android 2.0/2.1 > wasn't good... for a phone, or even a tablet, most apps are plenty fast > enough without a JIT. I think the JIT will help in some genres, especially > games that aren't completely done in the NDK. There's many reasons they made the dalvik vm. I'm sure in raw performance ME has good code. (old code tends to be fast) Not sure how you're measuring performance though, the android GUI is pretty heavy considering. > I think programmers that only know java are far less than those that learned > Java from another language, usually C/C++ or VBasic.. I myself came over > from Delphi which was more like Java than Pascal in my opinion. As for it > being as popular because it's taught at universities.. don't agree at all. > Pascal and C were taught for a lot longer than Java has been, and Java has > far surpassed it in choice the industry right now. Android is only going > to add to the popularity of Java, and thanks to Apple's ridiculous > requirements and rules, it's also helping many developers leave Apple and > come to Android. I don't believe in taboos... if I have to I can pick up > other languages as needed. Thus far, there hasn't been anything I can't do > with Java. I don't write native/platform games, or system drivers, most > other apps I can use Java for. > That's why java is good for your standard apps, which is what it's great for. It doesn't push the standard in speed the way C does. It doesn't push the standard with expressiveness the way many other languages do. It doesn't push the standard with multicore programming beside standard threads. Also, Java is not C. It's slower, but easier to learn and use. That's why it became more popular than C. Not sure what happened to Pascal. Last time I used Pascal I was in the 8th grade. The thing with java is that its become one of those code monkey/slave languages like php. I'm sure java will live on for a long time, it just won't be talked about. At least it wouldn't if people wouldn't be improving it. -- http://developingthedream.blogspot.com/, http://diastrofunk.com, http://www.youtube.com/user/revoltingx, ~Isaiah 55:8-9 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
