On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 18:34, abangkis <abang...@gmail.com> wrote: > --> Okay, i think we're on the same page . I do agree that learning > new language can be an eye opener. But please note that learning and > try to master it is a different kind of thing. The effort is on a > different level. And also note that people are lazy. So the common > ground was to master a language that can cover most of the domains to > use it on daily job, and then patch it with another language in > special cases.
It depends on the problem. > It would be better if the language can cover the whole domain which is > where java excel compared to other language. And also learning a new > framework is different than learning a new language. Since besides > introduced new thing , new way of work, it also carry over the > behavior and concept from the underlying language. Java doesn't excel in desktop application, interfacing with hardware directly, 3d application (CAD, games?), or too fat hence no cost effective for devices that has limited hardware (There are plenty of example for this, microwavee, Air conditioner, etcs). Creating frarmework in a language that doesn't do well in this area, vs. learning new language that has an excellent facilities to handle the problem is a no brainer. > --> i agree. But remember the target here, for people to learn a > little language as possible as their main language. So based on that > and the points above, i think that's a valid point for most people to > think that java is relevant. Patching the master language with special > one on special case would be an added benefits. I don't think that is a valid target. If everyone are doing just that, java as a language will be dead. There will be no enhancement in the language. Such as, generic, closure, scripting language. > On other subject, javafx exists to bring the java concept of WORA to a > new level. Since the javaFX deployment target was to cover web, mobile > and embeded system. But like google chrome that was introduce late to > the market. The effort to convince and shake the market would be huge > in order to make it a success. Yup. But when they succeed, would java as a language still relevant at that time? > As for the syntax then we have to look back at the android case. What > is java actually ? is it the language, is it the jvm, is it both ? And > what creature is actually javascript ? since it actually doesn't use > all of java syntax or the jvm and born from netscape instead of sun > while still carrying the java emblem ? IMHO It will be tiresome and > time wasting to cover this topic over and over again :D Java/any language/framework is a tool that solve a particular set of problem nicely. >>> Nice point from thomas though. Bagi kita-kita yang tech savvy , >>> kadang2 miss tentang marketing dan dukungan vendor. Padahal untuk end >>> user untuk memilih solution, dua hal ini persentasenya bisa jauh lebih >>> besar daripada how cool the technology is. >> >> Well.. if it's a cool technology.. with a bit of luck. it will become >> mainstream.. >> Ruby? Python? Scala? > > --> Really ? You believe that ? Yup. How do u explain growth in other languages? > Well since moving away from engineering position i found out that to > make one thing as the main stream choice. The investment for the > technology is the least , compared to other components. You can check > with the global job demand that usually get released every year and > see the top language (sorry forgot the named of the survey body that > usually released this). Agree, but what is mainstream :P http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=java%2C+ruby%2C+python%2C+scala%2C+actionscript%2C+c%23&l=&relative=1 Notice something? In terms of growth, java is not growing at all. Regards, Edward Yakop
