God I fucking hate Java. It is the biggest pile of fucking wanking piss I have ever had to wrestle with.
Excuse the language. I just had to let it out.
Thanks for reading. I feel better already.
I'm now android programming. My plan for dumping most of the Java and writing all of my game and rendering code is CPP is going very well.
Just a few more days of this Java poo and I will be able to spend most of the rest of the project in the land of lovely CPP.
Java
-
teamonkey
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 12082
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:07 am 0
- XBL Gamertag: itsthetaste
- PSN: teamonkey_ca
- Contact:
Re: Java
I don't know if you can do this for Android development, but there are many much nicer Java languages out there than Java. Clojure is very nice and Scala's supposed to be pretty good too. Or JRuby or Jython.
-
gilesgoat
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 27258
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
- Location: Monfalcone, Italy
- Contact:
Re: Java
We'll see what happens with C++0x.
I think in terms of efficiency "nothing can beat CPP" in fact CPP is "a precusor to ASM" something that the compiler ( should )
turns into ultra-efficient hw-dependant ASM the best way for a given HW.
In terms of "portability" well in this case I'd say "depends how good your 'standard lib/apis' is/are", if I can have a function
to call "DoSomethingReallyComplex ( parametrs )" in machine X and Y and it produces the same effects in X and Y "that's
all you want" I'd say.
Given the language itself is "limited" to "for/while/if/do/etc." we could discuss if the problem is "in the language or in the libs".
Java is a case apart, because it's bytecode and relies on the efficiency of the JVM
About C we could say something about pointers and "raw data access" but again it possible to write "well behaved code"
that handles all those things in a portable way.
I think most programs are not portable because they never meant in the first place to be and they never been designed
to be as that in the first place, not because "of a limitation of C++", clearly if I do a WIN32 program that to open
a window and print in requires certain things in a certain way and then I'd want to do into an iPhone that comes out
totally different but not because of C++ but because I don't have an "standard lib" that says "OpenWindowAndPrintIn (text)"
on both machines with the same parameters and call.
But this has nothing to do with C++ has to do with the OS and the implementation of those things.
Mind you, it would be possible to make that function that works "the same" on both machines.
What I love about C++ is that "if you want to go down to metal you can" and if you don't want you don't have to so
it's always possible to write some pieces of code "highly hw dependant but very fast" and other pieces of code "not
hw dependant but still as fast as they should/could be".
Certainly this means you need good C++ compilers, but of course "if you don't have those, then you don't do anything".
If you tell me "but those people are fucked they can't provide properly efficient/working C++ compilers with their HW"
then I'd say "they are doomed as HW developers from start" "it's not possible to live and do stuff without a proper C
compiler nowdays", it would be like to say "I don't have an ASM to write stuff on this piece of HW".
I think they grab Java because "all they have to do is hope to implement a good enough JVM" and have all the rest
"already done by someone else" probably some Java 'compiler' got from somewhere in Taiwan who knows who ever made it
"I heard that it works fine".
The JVM probably done directly in ASM by some other in Romania/China/Taiwan/Korea/etc. because they did not even
have a decent C compiler for that HW ( and they never will because there is no point ).
"Documentation ?" .. ah .. "some user(s) will write it .. " ..
I think in terms of efficiency "nothing can beat CPP" in fact CPP is "a precusor to ASM" something that the compiler ( should )
turns into ultra-efficient hw-dependant ASM the best way for a given HW.
In terms of "portability" well in this case I'd say "depends how good your 'standard lib/apis' is/are", if I can have a function
to call "DoSomethingReallyComplex ( parametrs )" in machine X and Y and it produces the same effects in X and Y "that's
all you want" I'd say.
Given the language itself is "limited" to "for/while/if/do/etc." we could discuss if the problem is "in the language or in the libs".
Java is a case apart, because it's bytecode and relies on the efficiency of the JVM
About C we could say something about pointers and "raw data access" but again it possible to write "well behaved code"
that handles all those things in a portable way.
I think most programs are not portable because they never meant in the first place to be and they never been designed
to be as that in the first place, not because "of a limitation of C++", clearly if I do a WIN32 program that to open
a window and print in requires certain things in a certain way and then I'd want to do into an iPhone that comes out
totally different but not because of C++ but because I don't have an "standard lib" that says "OpenWindowAndPrintIn (text)"
on both machines with the same parameters and call.
But this has nothing to do with C++ has to do with the OS and the implementation of those things.
Mind you, it would be possible to make that function that works "the same" on both machines.
What I love about C++ is that "if you want to go down to metal you can" and if you don't want you don't have to so
it's always possible to write some pieces of code "highly hw dependant but very fast" and other pieces of code "not
hw dependant but still as fast as they should/could be".
Certainly this means you need good C++ compilers, but of course "if you don't have those, then you don't do anything".
If you tell me "but those people are fucked they can't provide properly efficient/working C++ compilers with their HW"
then I'd say "they are doomed as HW developers from start" "it's not possible to live and do stuff without a proper C
compiler nowdays", it would be like to say "I don't have an ASM to write stuff on this piece of HW".
I think they grab Java because "all they have to do is hope to implement a good enough JVM" and have all the rest
"already done by someone else" probably some Java 'compiler' got from somewhere in Taiwan who knows who ever made it
"I heard that it works fine".
The JVM probably done directly in ASM by some other in Romania/China/Taiwan/Korea/etc. because they did not even
have a decent C compiler for that HW ( and they never will because there is no point ).
"Documentation ?" .. ah .. "some user(s) will write it .. " ..
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
"Baa"
-
Dungeon-Dave
- Baaaaaa!
- Posts: 3925
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:01 pm 0
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Java
Give it a few years and he'll be demanding this new Flash thing be added to their website, too.Malf wrote:Meanwhile one of my company's main clients is telling us that Java is the wave of the future and we absolutely must switch right away.
People knock Java but don't forget that without it .net wouldn't exist. And Java is more than just a language - it's also a design philosophy and implementation philosophy. If that part was so wank, why did other languages see fit to copy it?
Re: Java
I quite like Java. I found it a revelation after years of C++ 11 or 12 years ago and I've only once ever had a cross platform problem with it and that was only an error with a jar manifest that was only picked up on a Solaris deployment.
I think most of the problems with Java are the number of bloated over-engineered frameworks that sprung up everywhere and half the world believing they needed full on J2EE for everything.
I think most of the problems with Java are the number of bloated over-engineered frameworks that sprung up everywhere and half the world believing they needed full on J2EE for everything.
Re: Java
You have my sympathy.RamaBot wrote:I'm now android programming.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
Re: Java
Thank you. It is a bit of a pain to get things started.Though I do like to be using OpenGL. You can get stuff up and running with no hassle.You have my sympathy.
The android is quite a nice system to be playing around with once you kick out the Java side.
I'm sure plenty of people love Java. I just find it very restrictive compared to CPP. But maybe that is just because I dont have enough experience with it.
Re: Java
Very true.Dungeon-Dave wrote:Give it a few years and he'll be demanding this new Flash thing be added to their website, too.Malf wrote:Meanwhile one of my company's main clients is telling us that Java is the wave of the future and we absolutely must switch right away.
People knock Java but don't forget that without it .net wouldn't exist. And Java is more than just a language - it's also a design philosophy and implementation philosophy. If that part was so wank, why did other languages see fit to copy it?
But of course my bosses are of the opinion that you can use the same old approach no matter the tool. I can hardly wait to start screwing in some nails...
Re: Java
I had a bit of a delve into Android's Dalvik VM one day when I was bored - it's a nice little register-based VM that's very JIT-friendly (as has recently been proved with the release of Android v2.2). I'm rather surprised that languages other than Java don't target it directly...teamonkey wrote:I don't know if you can do this for Android development, but there are many much nicer Java languages out there than Java. Clojure is very nice and Scala's supposed to be pretty good too. Or JRuby or Jython.
"I am a very considerate person. If I want to go out all night on my miniature golf course and shoot lizards, well, no reason to keep the neighbours awake..."
Re: Java
That's nothing - just you try hammering in some screwsMalf wrote: ... I can hardly wait to start screwing in some nails...
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime double so..." - Ford Prefect, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Re: Java
I find C# far nicer to deal with than Java.
If given a choice, I would prefer a native-compiled language like Object Turbo Pascal (Delphi)
any day but the realities of the market and the hype from the bullshit artists have made it otherwise.
I loved the way they presented the Java VM as a revolution in the press when it came out even though
there already were Pascal VMs back in the days of the Apple II.
If given a choice, I would prefer a native-compiled language like Object Turbo Pascal (Delphi)
any day but the realities of the market and the hype from the bullshit artists have made it otherwise.
I loved the way they presented the Java VM as a revolution in the press when it came out even though
there already were Pascal VMs back in the days of the Apple II.
Re: Java
Yeah, Dalvik's not that bad, to be honest.Firefox wrote:I had a bit of a delve into Android's Dalvik VM one day when I was bored - it's a nice little register-based VM that's very JIT-friendly (as has recently been proved with the release of Android v2.2). I'm rather surprised that languages other than Java don't target it directly...
What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to wake up and realise how atrocious its performance was without JIT. I mean, it's not like "Java without JIT performs like shit" is somehow something new, and we're talking about an embedded system, for fuck's sake.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"