On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 12:00:41AM -0500, Signal 11 wrote:
>
> > Java, as great as it is (I love it) has some real deficiencies.
>
> Okay, first, take this with a huge grain of salt. I have done
> all of two programming projects. One failed, the other succeeded.
> Both are small ~1500 line wonders. I know I'm a novice programmer,
> but hey.. that won't stop me from making stupid statements. =)
More importantly, if you have never worked with java _at all_ it makes it
very difficult to make any intelligent comments about it...
> Well, each language has its own strengths and weaknesses. Java,
> for better or for worse, seems to have a "This is the way you
> will do X" kind of approach. Which is fine, if you do it /that/
> way. Whereas with C/C++, you can do it this way, that way, and
> 23 other ways too. Which can be frustrating. C++ has to be
> the most complex bag-on-the-side addon to C, which in and of
> itself is hairy.... *SIGH*
Java is not a purist language. There are many ways to do everything. There
is almost always a best way to do something though, and it usually
involves the class libraries in ways that people who do not know them
wouldn't expect.
To make the most basic example, you can very well do:
Vector v = foobar;
for (int i = 0 ; i < v.size() ; i++) {
Object o = v.elementAt(i);
// do stuff
}
but the java coder prefers:
Vector v = foobar;
for (Enumeration e = v.elements() ; e.hasMoreElements();) {
Object o = e.nextElement();
// do stuff
}
> I've tried just straight C and while you can get *very* low-
> level with things, I often lose track of just what the hell I
> was doing because copying a string from one location to another
> and making it uppercase takes 40 lines of code and 3 different
> functions. By the time I'm done, I'm just glad I got the damn
> thing to compile.. much less do what I want it to do.[1]
String s = "hello world".toUpperCase();
<snip your rambling>
> So, in summary... it's not just Java that sucks.. they all
> suck. :(
All programming languages are better then none. People who learn to love
then are not crazy, they just give them A LOT more then 3000 lines...
> ~ Signal 11
>
> [1] I know I'm new to programming because I'm still clinging
> to the hope that someday, someone will create a language
> in which LESS than 90% of your time is spent debugging.
> Experienced programmers, I suspect, have already concluded
> no such languages exists, and never will, and therefore have
> more hair on their head than I do. I mistrust bald programmers.
Whether you spend 90% of your time debugging or not depends more on
yourself and how you write code then on the language you are using. A lot
of what people call "debugging" is actually "thinking later because I
didn't think first".
Some languages just require a little more thinking.
--
\oskar
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
