Hi, Manuel!
In a message of <18 Apr 99 20:11:39> Manuel Lemos wrote to Thomas Boerkel:
>>>>> For instance, despite the claims of "Write once and run every where"
>>>>> you don't see many titles of significant programs written only in
>>>>> Java.
>>>>> You even may see programs written with Java versions, but done after
>>>>> native versions for Windows and other platforms.
>>>> Java is still very young. And its powerful GUI classes "Swing" are
>>>> even younger. You can't say that lack of numbers of programs proves
>>>> that Java can't do it.
>>> Although it is pretty much pointless carry on discussusing this point
>>> because it's clear that we don't agree on it, the way I see the people
>>> that gave up on Java after have tried have done it for reasons that
>>> will always persist.
>> Now name those reason or be quiet,if you are only speculating.
> It's a fact. For instance a lot of people try and figure that Java is
"a lot of people"... Don't you have something that YOU tried out? It
seems to me that you are bringing up YOUR own assumptions and wrap them
into "others have tried".
> for instance not better suited for desktop programming when they only
> mean to develop for a few platforms and they don't find the speed
> acceptable.
Again, this statement does not make sense as it is. Specify "a few
platforms", state the Java version that was tried, ...
>>>> Some time ago, I wrote a multithreaded server program with VisualC for
>>>> Win32. Then we needed the same for UNIX. Rewriting this for 4
>>>> different
>>> That was a mistake. You didn't not antecipate the need for writing for
>>> other platforms than Windows and of course porting become way more
>>> painful. If you develop in Java from the start you are implicitle
>>> antecipating the need to run on multiple platforms, although it's never
>>> the same thing as doing native versions.
>> And it is still a lot of extra work per platform.
> That extra work may mean properly supporting the underlying platform and
"may"... or may not.
> have better market acceptance for that. Software is more a business
> than activity you do for fun. Some people just don't think that view
> is important.
I see your point. You think, you are the only person doing serious
development that has to be profitable.
>>>>> Right, but I know enough of them and as I said there is a lot of
>>>>> people betting on Java for the wrong reasons.
>>>> Now name the Java pitfalls.
>>> I'll be repeating myself.
>> You did not say much until now. Your only argument was garbage
>> collection and that is for most cases totally irrelvant.
> Read back again. I mentioned needless range checking that contribute
> for Java speed loss and for some reason you skipped over that. You may
Did YOU ever compare C++ vs. Java? Or Visual Basic vs. Java? Or something
else? Did YOU ever try out something in Java? Java IS fast in the current
versions.
As Holger mentioned recently: In most cases, it is the algorithm that is
slow, not the language.
> add also user input handling responsiveness as I mentioned in a
> previous message although that's only a disadvantage on OSes like Amiga
> and BeOS.
???
Bye,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe daytona-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
