Hello Thomas,
I've been away but this list seems too quite...
On 19-Apr-99 18:55:19, you wrote:
> >>>>> 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".
I don't have to try to understand the expectations and the difficulties of
others including coleagues that I talk to almost everyday.
> > 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, ...
I only tried Windows versions. As for Java version, I can't tell you
exactly. I may tell you that I tried for instance under Windows 98 if that
will help. I also wanted to try a UML design program named ArgoUML but it
required JDK 1.2 which I suppose I have to download. When I looked at Sun
Java download pages it said there are only versions for Windows and
Solaries and it required a 20MB download.
> >>>> 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.
I don't think that, but since I manage the software development of the
company I work for, I can't afford the time and the money spent in trying
technologies that being pushed with the force of marketing, before those
technologies prove to be the best tools for the job.
It has been long the time I worked in university where people are more
concerned with the fun and the personal merit achieved by their
developments then with the applicability of their work.
In large companies there is also that mentality of "we have money to waste
on so claimed Research and Development, so let's pour it in projects about
the things that are being most hyped right now." So there come projects in
things like: Java, Push, XML, Agents, just to name a few that are in
fashion.
Large companies spend piles of money on this kind of R&D because they can
afford it. But small companies can't do that because all the investments
have to justify that they'll turn into some kind of profit in short time.
So the adoption of these techologies has to be more throughly evaluated
before being adopted in any actual project of product.
> >>>>> 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
Do I need to compare to tell you that the overhead of range checking
exists?
>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.
Right, I am telling about the implementations that I tried.
> > 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.
>???
Have you ever heard of "MUI is slow"? That's not quite about speed but
about the responsiveness of programs because user input is handled by the
application task rather then in separate task. But this is a subject that
has been hammered enough.
Regards,
Manuel Lemos
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.e-na.net/the_author.html
PGP key: finger:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe daytona-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
