Comments on: Java becoming a LanguageForSmartPeople, not a LanguageForTheMasses? http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/ The other kind of micro blog Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:15:05 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: NT http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-300756 NT Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:10:21 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-300756 <p>The people who think that ECMA standardization and Mono will make C# a cross platform language truly must have been born yesterday! Microsoft and standards? They don't work well together, don't you know that? As ever, if the standard succeeds its goals and gains adoption, oh my, a new version will be forked by MS (e.g. NET 3.5) which is not currently supported by Mono, but say, it's so much more productive as you get all these free tools with it ;) If the standard does not gain popularity, well at least some swinging voters moved on Microsoft's side, preaching how green the field is there.</p> <p>Furthermore, clearly they do not understand that Java is cross platform as in "it works fully on all supported platforms". Mono barely works with 2.0, with a lot of things not being there yet (not even on 1 platform, not 2 or 3) and other never being planned to be there (say full WPF stack). The latter is not called cross platform last time I checked, rather "half-baked".</p> The people who think that ECMA standardization and Mono will make C# a cross platform language truly must have been born yesterday! Microsoft and standards? They don’t work well together, don’t you know that? As ever, if the standard succeeds its goals and gains adoption, oh my, a new version will be forked by MS (e.g. NET 3.5) which is not currently supported by Mono, but say, it’s so much more productive as you get all these free tools with it ;) If the standard does not gain popularity, well at least some swinging voters moved on Microsoft’s side, preaching how green the field is there.

Furthermore, clearly they do not understand that Java is cross platform as in “it works fully on all supported platforms”. Mono barely works with 2.0, with a lot of things not being there yet (not even on 1 platform, not 2 or 3) and other never being planned to be there (say full WPF stack). The latter is not called cross platform last time I checked, rather “half-baked”.

]]> By: Matt Quail http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Matt Quail Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:33:48 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-53 <p>A very good question. I certainly don't think the 1.5 features would please any "wizard hackers". And at the same time, this added complexity is strangely targeted at low-skill (VB-ers) coders, to make it simpler.</p> <p>I think we will need to look to Groovy for "wizard hacker" features (eg, it has clousres).</p> A very good question. I certainly don’t think the 1.5 features would please any "wizard hackers". And at the same time, this added complexity is strangely targeted at low-skill (VB-ers) coders, to make it simpler.

I think we will need to look to Groovy for "wizard hacker" features (eg, it has clousres).

]]> By: Frank Harper http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Frank Harper Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:41:58 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-52 <p>One year later and JDK 1.5 is coming out RSN.</p> <p>My question is will the added complexity now allow you to do your "Wizard Hacker work"? That isn't apparent to me, since almost none of the features you mentioned have been implemented in 1.5:</p> <p>"I've wanted parametric polymorphism (generics), or multi-methods (multiple dispatch), or real closures, or first-class functions, or continuations, or compile-time-loose but run-time-strict typing."</p> <p>So my question is, has Sun just added complexity without much real benefit?</p> One year later and JDK 1.5 is coming out RSN.

My question is will the added complexity now allow you to do your "Wizard Hacker work"? That isn’t apparent to me, since almost none of the features you mentioned have been implemented in 1.5:

"I’ve wanted parametric polymorphism (generics), or multi-methods (multiple dispatch), or real closures, or first-class functions, or continuations, or compile-time-loose but run-time-strict typing."

So my question is, has Sun just added complexity without much real benefit?

]]> By: Terris Linenbach http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Terris Linenbach Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:09:22 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-51 <p>Please allow me to rephrase </p> <p>At least ECMA and not Microsoft or Sun have a say in what C# becomes</p> <p>with:</p> <p>At least Microsoft nor Sun have a monopoly over C#.</p> Please allow me to rephrase

At least ECMA and not Microsoft or Sun have a say in what C# becomes

with:

At least Microsoft nor Sun have a monopoly over C#.

]]> By: Terris Linenbach http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Terris Linenbach Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:06:20 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-50 <p>The Java linguists at Sun seem to be envious of the .NET platform which, after all, supports any sort of language that defines a Turing machine one way or the other. I have often heard Java proponents say that Java's simplicity -- and the fact that there is only one dialect known as Java -- is its main advantage over .NET. So I wonder what Java people think about Sun polluting the Java namespace. As someone who has no investment in .NET or Java, I'm just an interested observer. Java is about multi-platform reach mainly, rather than its simplicity, but thanks to the Mono project, and the ECMA standardization of c#, .NET can be viewed at least somewhat in the same manner. At least ECMA and not Microsoft or Sun have a say in what C# becomes, and I know many Java developers who are worried what Sun will do next to interfere with their apple cart.</p> <p>Thanks for the opportunity to express my views.</p> The Java linguists at Sun seem to be envious of the .NET platform which, after all, supports any sort of language that defines a Turing machine one way or the other. I have often heard Java proponents say that Java’s simplicity — and the fact that there is only one dialect known as Java — is its main advantage over .NET. So I wonder what Java people think about Sun polluting the Java namespace. As someone who has no investment in .NET or Java, I’m just an interested observer. Java is about multi-platform reach mainly, rather than its simplicity, but thanks to the Mono project, and the ECMA standardization of c#, .NET can be viewed at least somewhat in the same manner. At least ECMA and not Microsoft or Sun have a say in what C# becomes, and I know many Java developers who are worried what Sun will do next to interfere with their apple cart.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my views.

]]> By: Malcolm Edgar http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Malcolm Edgar Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:50:03 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-49 <p>I am quite concerned about the new language features for 1.5: http://java.sun.com/features/2003/05/bloch_qa.html</p> <p>They may save a couple of lines of coding and some type casting, but I think the cost benefit ratio is too high. Generics in particular will give people enough rope to hang their whole team.</p> <p>I think it is really too late to be introducing these sort of changes into the language. My target platform is 1.3, it is going to be years before the app servers catch up to 1.5 when its released. All this stuff is really academic.</p> I am quite concerned about the new language features for 1.5: http://java.sun.com/features/2003/05/bloch_qa.html

They may save a couple of lines of coding and some type casting, but I think the cost benefit ratio is too high. Generics in particular will give people enough rope to hang their whole team.

I think it is really too late to be introducing these sort of changes into the language. My target platform is 1.3, it is going to be years before the app servers catch up to 1.5 when its released. All this stuff is really academic.

]]> By: Gerry http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-20/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Gerry Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:33:44 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-20#comment-48 <p>Check out www.artima.com - there's a new Bill Venners interview with author/black-belt programmer Bruce Eckel about Python. He seems to think that Python is more of a LFM than Java is. I agree with some of his points, but for the most part I think I can live with Java just fine. </p> <p>It would be nice if Sun agreed to either fork Java on purpose or create a "Java 3" version that breaks all compatibility with previous versions in order to strip out deprecated stuff, upgrade primitives to real types, and fix a whole bunch of inconsistencies and poor designs that they've since learned better not use use. Something I'd also like to see is a better modularized library system where if a JVM didn't have the "standard" libraries it needed it could do a WebStart/JNLP "get" of the stuff it needed at runtime (or not, if so configured). Then the JVM starts out nice and slim and could be deployed on purpose to remain that way. </p> <p>There really is a lot of Java that needs to be "fixed", but like I said, I can live with Java as is API-wise for quite some time and still be happy as long as they keep improving performance. OTOH I think I might give Python a try as well....</p> Check out http://www.artima.com – there’s a new Bill Venners interview with author/black-belt programmer Bruce Eckel about Python. He seems to think that Python is more of a LFM than Java is. I agree with some of his points, but for the most part I think I can live with Java just fine.

It would be nice if Sun agreed to either fork Java on purpose or create a "Java 3" version that breaks all compatibility with previous versions in order to strip out deprecated stuff, upgrade primitives to real types, and fix a whole bunch of inconsistencies and poor designs that they’ve since learned better not use use. Something I’d also like to see is a better modularized library system where if a JVM didn’t have the "standard" libraries it needed it could do a WebStart/JNLP "get" of the stuff it needed at runtime (or not, if so configured). Then the JVM starts out nice and slim and could be deployed on purpose to remain that way.

There really is a lot of Java that needs to be "fixed", but like I said, I can live with Java as is API-wise for quite some time and still be happy as long as they keep improving performance. OTOH I think I might give Python a try as well….

]]>