On 6 Jul., 13:16, kirk <[email protected]> wrote:
> it is coming in 7.0. Although it's common to want to switch on strings
> IMHO its an indication that you want behavior in your strings which is
> not String like so using a String isn't what you really want to be
> using.

I was used using that to evaluate series of keywords in configuration
files or script language dialects I used. I had some projects where
there was the need to offer a high level of flexibility but the
adminstrators were no developers and hence not able to write real
scripts in a scripting language. So I was used to create some sort of
my own script interpreter with really easy syntax.


> Really points
> to how we need an event model and how mis-designed Swing really is (no,
> SWT isn't any better).

Oh, the Swing discussion could be a separate one - BTW: I find Swing
much better because of the higher level of freedom in widgets creation
and the changable look and feel.


> I've worked in polygot environments and I found (as you'd expect) that
> many stuck to one language though everyone seems ok with the others. It
> just depended on what part of the system you were focusing on. Point is,
> if it's in the environment, you'll adapt. Otherwise you'll stagnate
> (language wise).

I didn't want to say that - from time to time - switching language is
a good thing. - I did it already many times.
But what does not make sense is a high rate of "language-hopping". If
there is not problems with interoperability
it is at least not so easy to reuse existing code fragments or
components.

So IMHO, switching language makes sense only when there is real long-
term benefit in the change.
This is also why it took me a while to think of the future and testing
out several options before the
final decision. I was asked why I have to decide - I can learn also
two or three languages in parallel.
Yes, I can do this, but then it will take me a longer while until I
can be productive in all those and
- more important - after a while I will always be more productive in
the language that I use more often.
So the logical conclusion was to focus on one language that will fit
most needs.


> I believe there is a lot of leg left in Java. To be sure some of the
> boiler pate stuff is going to be picked off by other languages as it
> should be. We don't want to continue to do things the hard way when
> we've figured out easier ways to get it done. That said, there are
> plenty of hard things to tackle that aren't boiler plate.

Yes, I agree that there is room for improvement and some guys here and
there
are bringing good arguments for being more expressive. I can also
understand
that the people working on the language core are very careful with
introducing
new idioms. And yes, I also have the opinion that some "boiler plate"
code
is not really boiler plate. In some cases I prefer having to write a
few more keywords
or code lines if it increases clarity.


On 6 Jul., 14:19, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am quite new to Java, but I looked at different languages for quite
> > a while before I have definitely decided to switch to Java (despite
> > the fact that most people in my near want to convince me to .NET) for
> > new projects.
> Hmm time for the Matrix mantra "Welcome to the real world"? ;)

Good to hear as I have the impression that some others want to
convince me that this here is the "wrong" or "old" world...


> Especially to Windows people, the .NET experience is a big temptation
> for the works-out-of-the-box experience. Java and the support
> ecosystem has come a long way since the first measly IDE's (Forte,
> JBuilder... ) but it was Visual Studio that really started that race
> back around 97'. No other editor had integrated debugger and code
> completion at the time.

You are right - with a few exceptions. In the DOS world the
Borland IDEs for Turbo Pascal and C++ were very well working,
extremely stable and fast. Or RAD tools like Magic II (which BTW still
exists in follow-up products - see http://www.magicsoftware.com/). The
latter was the most efficient I have ever used - but not applicable
for me any more due to the fact that I am a system integrator and need
to glue together different systems and need more flexibility (this is
the one big disadvantage of RAD tools and frameworks that you loose
flexibility more or less).


> Re-factoring
> options and plugins for VS are fewer though.

I tested the Visual Studio for .NET in the first versions and again
with 2005. I had stability problems with even with hello world style
test projects. Feature like javadoc I found completely missing (I have
read that there are several tools available to achieve this - but why
is that not there out-of-the-box?). And last but not least it ate a
very big part of my hard disk for not being able to generate platform
independent code...


> Not sure I agree with that. Without idioms, your brain is still going
> to read, parse and map it as one at a conceptional level - that's not
> something you avoid by simply leaving out syntactical support. Sure
> the syntax appear simpler with fewer keywords, but it's now harder for
> tools to reason about your intent. Java only recently got support for
> enums and foreach, I have yet to meet someone who dislike those
> idioms.

You're right. I am convinced.


> True, C# is their lingo franca, but Python, Ruby and F# are gaining
> growth on the .NET platform. The interoperability and component
> boundaries in .NET are quite well thought out.

Yes, probably Microsoft is trying to be attractive for those
developers (as Google wants the Java developers ;-) ).


> While .NET is centered around language interoperability, Java is
> centered around platform interoperability.

If not both can be achieved together, I prefer the latter.


> If you notice, Matisse also creates an XML file so it's not true round-
> trip engineering around the source. It's a good example of the lack of
> idioms in the language, Matisse can not rely on just the code itself
> to deduce the layout.

I didn't notice that yet. Thanks for pointing out.

> And because Java does not
> support partial classes, you have to get used to NetBeans locking a
> lot of generated/managed lines which you can not touch in any way
> except by going behind NetBeans back.

Indeed I felt strange when I noticed that, but it does not disturb me
any more because
NetBeans Matisse is creating so much more beautiful code than the
Eclipse Visual Editor that I do not see any reason to change that.


> > From what I have seen so far from C# is that Microsoft has
> > just (again) copied something that has been invented by others and
> > knowing to be successful.
> Yes they did, that is how most new languages are created - thankfully
> we don't reinvent the wheel constantly. They have since moved on and
> if anything, Java is now copying C#. The successor to Java will likely
> copy C# (i.e. attributes).

Hopefully, they will just copy the healthy parts and hopefully
Microsoft does
not have appropriate patents...


> Having said all that. Java ain't bad, it takes a bit more work (i.e.
> lots of choices to be made) but you gain your platform freedom.

Yeah, that is the most difficult for me - and here the JavaPosse
podcast discussions
help me a lot here - so THANK YOU GUYS!!!

Indeed - especially for a newcomer - there are so many options. A
friend
of mine working with .NET told me: "We have just one option for many
things
but that does everything we need, so why bother. We don't have the
time to
do long evaluations of frameworks." Although I do understand his point
of view,
in my developer life I faced a lot of issues where I wished to have at
least a
second alternative when something simply didn't work that way.

In general when stepping outside the Microsoft-World you start having
many options
- just thinking of the wide range of available OSes nowadays. I feel
so fine that I
can switch linux distribution according to the focus that I prefer. -
OK it may take
a while to sort out what fits better, but when you know then you get
something that
fits your needs and you can do a better consulting to others maybe
having little
different requirements. - And same applies to Java Web technologies
(this is my current
"battlefield" where I am still evaluating).

Maybe that's why I do not see many new Java developers - most of those
I meet do
Java since a long while - because it is much more effort needed in the
beginning.
But: More effort is often better quality. ;-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to