On May 21, 7:47 am, s...@viridian.paintbox (Sion Arrowsmith) wrote:
> Duncan Booth wrote:
>
> >namekuseijin wrote:
> >> I find it completely unimaginable that people would even think
> >> suggesting the idea that Java is simpler. It's one of the most stupidly
> >> verbose and cranky languages o
Lie Ryan wrote:
>Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
>> Once, when faced with a rather hairy problem that client requirements
>> dictated a pure Java solution for, I coded up a fully functional
>> prototype in Python to get the logic sorted out, and then translated
>> it. [And it wasn't pleasant.]
>
>Jython ?
Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
OTOH, I consider it a productive day if I end up with fewer lines of code
than I started with.
A friend once justified a negative LOC count as being the sign of a
good day with the following observation:
Code that doesn't exist contains no bugs.
Code that doesn't exist t
Duncan Booth wrote:
>namekuseijin wrote:
>> I find it completely unimaginable that people would even think
>> suggesting the idea that Java is simpler. It's one of the most stupidly
>> verbose and cranky languages out there, to the point you can't really do
>> anything of relevance without a
namekuseijin wrote:
> I find it completely unimaginable that people would even think
> suggesting the idea that Java is simpler. It's one of the most stupidly
> verbose and cranky languages out there, to the point you can't really do
> anything of relevance without an IDE automatically pumpin
In article ,
namekuseijin wrote:
>
>I find it completely unimaginable that people would even think
>suggesting the idea that Java is simpler. It's one of the most stupidly
>verbose and cranky languages out there, to the point you can't really do
>anything of relevance without an IDE automatic
Ant escreveu:
# Python
fh = open("myfile.txt")
for line in fh:
print line
// Java
...
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader
("myfile.txt"));
String line = reader.readLine();
while (line != null) {
System.out.println(line);
}
...
And that's without all of the clas
On May 20, 6:46 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
> anyway, again, thanks for the laughs.
I'm a Java developer in my day job, and I use Jython for testing out
ideas and prototyping, due to the way Jython makes writing Java so
much easier... Those examples were spot on - things weren't much
simpler before g
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, David Stanek wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:43 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
>> someone said:
>>
>> If you took a look at Java, you would
>> notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.
>>
>> thanks for the laughs whoever you are!
My experience has been that if the execution stays
inside the VM, then for a "server side" application, the
JVM is faster, and proportionally even faster when there
are more threads ready to do something.
When the VM has to do a lot of interaction with the
OS, then I think it is difficult to make
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM, David Stanek wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:43 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
>> someone said:
>>
>> If you took a look at Java, you would
>> notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.
>>
>> thanks for the laughs whoever you are!
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:43 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
> someone said:
>
> If you took a look at Java, you would
> notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.
>
> thanks for the laughs whoever you are!
>
I'm no Java fan, but I do agree that the core language is a
someone said:
If you took a look at Java, you would
notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.
thanks for the laughs whoever you are!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> Ah! I should have been careful before asking such "general" question about
> performance. I agree with you. But mine was more academic. I should not given
> a specific example.
>
> AFAIK, for java on the client side, JVM performance is one of the critical
> things which has been tuned to death
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Fetchinson <
fetchin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
> >> >> features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
> >> >> provide the high level of support needed to be
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:42 -0700, Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> Benchmarks always test for a given feature. The available benchmarks
> will most likely not test the feature relevant for your particular
> application simply because there are about a gazillion different ways
> of using a web framework.
>> >> On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
>> >> features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
>> >> provide the high level of support needed to be reasonably productive
>> >> in heavy-weight languages (e.g. Java).
>> >>
>> >> On the other han
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Aahz wrote:
> In article ,
> Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> >Steve Ferg wrote:
> >>
> >> On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
> >> features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
> >> provide the high level of supp
18 matches
Mail list logo
