On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 11:27:17 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 04/09/2014 16:21, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 14:19:02 UTC, Bruno Medeiros
wrote:
On 26/08/2014 09:46, Chris wrote:
The problem was that Java didn't behave as expected on
Windows. Things
that worked fine on Linux and OS X didn't work on Windows
(even simple
things like deleting files). User reported all sorts of
problems, one of
them being that the Java Access Bridge didn't work. Why,
nobody knows.
The lack of a proper sound API / library. Then there was the
versioning
hell with JRE/JVM and having to tell users what version they
had to
download (the non tech savvy crowd). I know that MS doesn't
make it easy
for Java either. Well, I could have sorted the problems out
with Java
web start, SWT and all that kind of stuff. Instead, I
learned D which I
can compile and run on each platform without a problem.
The promise of "Write once run everywhere" is still pretty
much
accurate if you stick to core Java code and libraries. Of
course once
you start using OS/implementation specific code you will have
to code
more carefully, and are more likely to encounter
cross-platform
problems. That's just the nature of things, you can't say
it's a
failure of Java.
It's like coding in D using lots of malloc/free in your code,
and then
when your program breaks, you complain that "the D GC doesn't
work!".
Of course the GC only is only guaranteed to work if you stick
to
GC-managed memory.
I can expect the Java Access Bridge to work, because Java
offers it as a
built-in technology. If it does not work, it's a broken
promise. Simple
as that.
Does Java Access Bridge really not work, or you just didn't use
it right? Or are you trying to use in for a purpose it's aimed
to be used? Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with JAB, so I
can't comment further on it..
I used it with Swing. It was ignored by all the screen readers.
To be honest I smell a load of Java-biased *BS* here,
especially
because of this sentence:
"Instead, I learned D which I can compile and run on each
platform
without a problem."
Which is true. I could compile it on Linux, OS X and Windows.
It was
almost trivial to write a DLL that third party software can
use. Try
that with Java and tell me if it's trivially easy. I think
what you
meant was _anti_-Java *BS*. I'm only writing about my
experience with
the two languages. The one worked for me, the other didn't.
When you say DLL, do you mean a shared library in general, or
really an actual Windows DLL? I'm assuming it's the former,
otherwise that doesn't make sense. Well In Java you can create
them quite easily: jars. They are trivial to be used by other
Java programs! I don't see your point.
I mean a DLL that can be loaded by say a Python program (as in my
case) or any other software that wants to use my plug-in[1]. A
jar can only be used by another Java program. Making a Java
program accessible to 3rd party software via a DLL is not so
simple, and the JVM has to be up and running all the time. Java
is cross-platform as long as you stay within the safe and cosy
Java bubble that floats on top of the JVM. But once you step
outside of the JVM, gravity kicks in.
Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of a VM. Only Java has
been screwed up over the years by bad and wrong decisions, partly
due to ideology and partly due to strategic / marketing
decisions. It's a pity really. It started out as a very promising
language but got caught under the wheels of corporate decisions
and OOP evangelists.
[1] Have a look at this. It was really just as simple:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Win32_DLLs_in_D
Actually virtually all other languages, including D, are just
as bad
as Java (if not worse) in the aspects mentioned above. For
example, if
you write code which heavily interacts with the filesystem,
you are
bound to encounter platform/OS-specific problems no matter
what
language. I'd bet money those "even simple things like
deleting
files", you'd have in D as well. At least in Java the APIs
they are
usually careful to specify which aspects of behavior are
implementation-specific.
Well, my statement refered to the fact that Java f**ked up big
time
there, which clearly breaks the promise "write once, run
everywhere",
especially because dealing with files is a feature one would
expect to
be part and parcel of a programming language. Deleting files
should not
give you a headache. Basically what you're saying is "Java is
cross-platform but it's not, but hey, other languages are just
as bad!".
Well, then they should stop using the word "cross-platform"
when
advertising their language.
If the core of the language was "working with with filesystem",
then yeah, they should not advertise it as cross-platform. But
it's not the core of language (even if it's part of the
standard library), it's just a minor library component, one
amongst many (the vast majority of it being fully
cross-platform).
In other cases, such as the sound library or accessibility
library,
most other cross-platform language don't even have those!, so
how can
you be saying that D runs better on each platform that Java?..
(Does a non-existent library run perfectly on every
conceivable
platform? one could say yes...)
D interfaces to existing audio / sound libraries in C
(libsndfile,
portaudio). All you have to do is to include those libs and
call the
functions you need. Doing this with Java is a bit more
complicated
(you'll probably need tools).
You are welcome to report on any serious issues you've
encountered when
porting D programs to various platforms. Maybe it can be fixed
in the
core of the language and it would help to make D even more
portable. A
lot of cross-platform issues can be dealt with by including
"version(Windows/Posix ...)" in your code.
