Sick of Java

kleptophobiac · 2005-07-17 02:08:33

I like how well java handles threads, as well as the whole object oriented thing (then again, I'm a fairly new programmer). I don't like the JRE. I wrote an extremely simple program - 64 KB for the entire JAR, including the commapi stuff from Sun. It takes 17MB of to run, and the thing does about zero processing. All the program does is store a (miniscule) matrix of ramps, about about 100-200KB of gathered data. I should guess the program shouldn't take more than 400KB of RAM to run.

Also, I wrote two programs - one in C (pure ANSI) and one in Java, to do exactly the same thing. The C program and the Java program executed at more or less the same speed. The C program took almost no RAM, and the Java program took 16MB. All it did was repetitive polling of a serial device. The C program could run on anything from a graphing calculator on up. The Java program would need a beefy machine to run.

cactus · 2005-07-17 02:55:20

max_sipos wrote:

And theoretically, there could be an XML gui editor with some nice layout handling - I don't if there is something like that? I would definitely love it for docbook..

XML-Mind is one that I know of.

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-07-17 21:11:38

Back to your original post, I agree with you about how it java can be quite complicated, and very hard to maintain the KISS philosophy. I think thats one of the reasons I left it after studying it for two years at a tech college.

And about it running slow. I've seen java programs run slowly comparitively speaking, but i think its all been caused sloppy code. At work, we support this java program that does pretty much everything they need to do. The project was rushed because they were pressured by GM, and therefore its the buggiest software ever written (That i have ever seen), and it runs quite slow.

kleptophobiac · 2005-07-17 22:18:01

Where in Kentucky are you?

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-07-18 01:14:54

Right in the middle...just south of lexington

sweiss · 2005-07-18 08:45:39

I don't understand how you managed to code in Java for so many years and still hate XML because it contains too much text

I've tried to learn how to code in Java - it didn't seem too complex but it sure was a lot of writing. It's way too protective of the coder, as if the coder hardly knows what s/he's doing.

The slowness of Java is GUI related. Because its GUI toolkit is written in Java itself it ends up being slow. Python can make use of existing C/C++ libraries. That's a very good thing. I'm not sure wether Java can do so as well or not. If it can, maybe it should.

arooaroo · 2005-07-18 09:14:48

sweiss wrote:

The slowness of Java is GUI related. Because its GUI toolkit is written in Java itself it ends up being slow. Python can make use of existing C/C++ libraries. That's a very good thing. I'm not sure wether Java can do so as well or not. If it can, maybe it should.

Java can interface native libs via JNI. This is how the SWT lib can provide heavyweight GUI components for different platforms.

Java GUIs used to be slow but I really don't think that's the case any more.

Dusty · 2005-07-18 14:37:04

Yeah... its kind of funny. All the old myths about Java being slow or bloated I disagree with (although bloat is becoming an issue with each new JRE). My problems with Java are for other reasons...

I think sweiss is right. I never thought of it that way, but Java is too protective... many years ago I got fed up with basic and moved to Java for something more powerful. Now the same is happening, I guess.

This also explains why Java is so popular in business. The coders in businsess tend to be methodical types.

Here's an odd note. I moved away from Basic cause it was interpretted (or more specifically, VB required you to pay for a compiler)... I moved to Java which is half interpretted, half compiled. Now I'm moving onto Python... back to interpretters.

Go figure.

Dusty

xerxes2 · 2005-07-18 15:02:45

how much memory does javas interpreter take?
does it really take 17mb like kleptophobiac said?

pythons interpreter takes around 800kb and luas 100kb,
that's not much to me,

sweiss · 2005-07-18 16:39:36

Dusty wrote:

Now I'm moving onto Python... back to interpretters.

Also, you can compile Python code into bytecode using a module included in the official package.

Dusty · 2005-07-18 16:45:38

sweiss wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Now I'm moving onto Python... back to interpretters.
Also, you can compile Python code into bytecode using a module included in the official package.

True, but Python bytecode isn't very... bytecody.

sweiss · 2005-07-18 17:01:08

Hmm yes, I've just googled a little and stumbled on a thing called decompyle, looks like you can recreate the original python source from the bytecode.

phrakture · 2005-07-18 17:20:36

Dusty wrote:

sweiss wrote:
Dusty wrote:
Now I'm moving onto Python... back to interpretters.
Also, you can compile Python code into bytecode using a module included in the official package.
True, but Python bytecode isn't very... bytecody.

Pyrex! Psyco!

iphitus · 2005-07-19 08:47:44

whenever you run a python program, or setup.py install, it automatically compiles to a pyc, which it uses next time.

all hte pyc really does is speed up the loading of modules, it doesnt provide any improvements in speed afterwards.

all being said, python is pretty quick anyway, if the program is well written, just like java is good unless poorly written.

iphitus

Dusty · 2005-07-20 16:09:12

Out of curiosity, can anybody come up with a programming task for which Java is definately better suited than Python?

I'm guessing maybe an enterprise server. But Python supports sockets and multithreading just as cleanly as Java or better, so I can't really justify that. To be honest, I don't even know exactly what an enterprise server actually does. :-D

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-07-20 16:21:39

Dusty wrote:

I'm guessing maybe an enterprise server. But Python supports sockets and multithreading just as cleanly as Java or better, so I can't really justify that. To be honest, I don't even know exactly what an enterprise server actually does.

That's what everyone always says "java is made for enterprise level stuff" - oh yeah? well, I challenge you to find me an "enterprise level" task which is unique to the fact that you are working in the context of an enterprise... i.e. "we need to send financial data from a unix machine to a windows server" - hmmm I transfer data from my linux machine to windows all the time... tcp, udp, jabber, http - the protocol/transport doesn't matter, it can be done anywhere.... "we need an app that runs on solaris AND random-unix-flavor-X" - again, this is nothing...

"java is for the enterprise" is just as much a buzz word as AJAX and XML and "extensible"... nothing is "for the enterprise" - hell, I can write you an app in *javascript* to send financial data from one machine to the other...

Dusty · 2005-07-20 16:25:55

I think you interpret the phrase "java is made for enterprise level stuff" incorrectly.

What it means is, enterprise level stuff has to *look* like it was hard, or your boss won't think you're worth your wages. So Java is really good for obfuscating these details...

Dusty

sweiss · 2005-07-20 17:08:53

Maybe it's good for the enterprise because of its protection mechanism - forces you to do actual designing and thinking before writing.

Maybe it's good for building projects, again, for its self-defence mechanism.

I've yet to work in an enterprise, so these are just speculations. Still I think that in most situations it is just a massive overhead, which can easily distract you from the task you are trying to do.

Seems to be more layout than actual coding.

rasat · 2005-07-27 02:34:15

Dusty wrote:

I guess Java is to programming languages as Red Hat is to Linux Distributions.

Now when you said it, that's what I felt when heard first time about Java. The person who presented told about its huge popularity and how unwise if not studied. What the mass thinks whats good for them, may not be good for Archers who love KISS.

iphitus · 2005-07-27 04:08:37

sweiss wrote:

Maybe it's good for the enterprise because of its protection mechanism - forces you to do actual designing and thinking before writing.
Maybe it's good for building projects, again, for its self-defence mechanism.

what's that? java knows kung foo?

sweiss · 2005-07-27 05:47:31

I bet J2EE 1.5 does.

Anyway I was referring to the huge statements you have to make in Java before you can do the actual coding, all that public static void etc.

demonus · 2005-07-27 12:12:03

IMNSHO, People that still code Perl should be eligible for early retirement

don't get it what's wrong with perl?

arooaroo · 2005-07-27 12:30:13

demonus wrote:

IMNSHO, People that still code Perl should be eligible for early retirement
don't get it what's wrong with perl?

Phrak's point IIRC was that it's just darn ugly. From my experience, when I wrote a Perl script, should I look at the code the day after, I couldn't tell what it was doing! It's syntax is surprisingly cryptic.

Python is much nicer. Haven't tried Ruby but I'm sure it's similarly lucid.

iphitus · 2005-07-27 12:36:53

/. wrote:

XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

hehe, enjoy

Arch Linux

#26 2005-07-17 02:08:33

Re: Sick of Java

#27 2005-07-17 02:55:20

Re: Sick of Java

#28 2005-07-17 21:11:38

Re: Sick of Java

#29 2005-07-17 22:18:01

Re: Sick of Java

#30 2005-07-18 01:14:54

Re: Sick of Java

#31 2005-07-18 08:45:39

Re: Sick of Java

#32 2005-07-18 09:14:48

Re: Sick of Java

#33 2005-07-18 14:37:04

Re: Sick of Java

#34 2005-07-18 15:02:45

Re: Sick of Java

#35 2005-07-18 16:39:36

Re: Sick of Java

#36 2005-07-18 16:45:38

Re: Sick of Java

#37 2005-07-18 17:01:08

Re: Sick of Java

#38 2005-07-18 17:20:36

Re: Sick of Java

#39 2005-07-19 08:47:44

Re: Sick of Java

#40 2005-07-20 16:09:12

Re: Sick of Java

#41 2005-07-20 16:21:39

Re: Sick of Java

#42 2005-07-20 16:25:55

Re: Sick of Java

#43 2005-07-20 17:08:53

Re: Sick of Java

#44 2005-07-27 02:34:15

Re: Sick of Java

#45 2005-07-27 04:08:37

Re: Sick of Java

#46 2005-07-27 05:47:31

Re: Sick of Java

#47 2005-07-27 12:12:03

Re: Sick of Java

#48 2005-07-27 12:30:13

Re: Sick of Java

#49 2005-07-27 12:36:53

Re: Sick of Java

Board footer