On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 14:42:05 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 14:18:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 13:42:56 UTC, Chris wrote:
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.
You can write DLLs in Java, for example with
http://www.excelsiorjet.com/.
I know, I know, but in D it comes for free. This would have
broken the bank.
The fact that the Java reference implementation is a VM,
doesn't tie the language to a VM.
There are quite a few commercial compilers and JVMs with AOT
support to choose from.
Oracle is finally thinking about adding a AOT compilation mode
to the standard toolchain in the Java 9+ release.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/jvmls2014goetzrose-2265201.pdf
Finally, I've been waiting for this since forever. I always
wondered why they didn't do it. Then again it was all about the
"write once ..." ideology and they thought AOT would undermine
this (which is not true). Why shouldn't programmers be able to
make the decision (VM / AOT where it makes sense)?
I once read in a forum, shortly after the Oracle/Sun acquisition
aftermath that there was a strong political position inside Sun
against AOT.
The post was arguably from an ex-Sun employee, but I cannot say
s/he was really telling the truth.
Actually, I think it was a bad decision to have gone fully VM,
without any optional AOT options in the standard toolchain.
At least in the ML, Lisp, .NET, Oberon, AS/400 worlds ..., you
get to choose.
--
Paulo
