Java runtime intranet installation? [found it, sort of]
-
Phil Martin... wrote:
For the majority of work that I do, my time is better spent in fine tuning the areas that need it, rather than making sure every single lock operation I do is perfect.
My time is better suited elsewhere too, and is done so. I don't spend ages manipulating locks and low level constructs. People make it sound like it is programming assembly, it is not. But it is parallel thought. Everything can happen simultaneously, so thought goes in: Can A occur when B is running? yes. Can B occur while A is running? yes. Will C work with A and B? yes. and so on and so forth. The idea that all operations are asynchronous and anything can happen at any time requires some thought, but we are not talking about writing war&peace, we're not even talking about nobel prize material here. It is simply a change in thought. You do what is necessary to protect what is necessary, no more, no less. No one is asking for 100% efficiency and perfection, no one is asking you to rewrite all your code in assembly. Is it really that hard to think: readlock() code.... unlock() and writelock() code unlock() is that so mindboggling as to defy description and place unparalleled burden on the programmers? You said "thinking" is beyond what most programmers do. That is the most frightening think you have said. The idea that you can program without thought, without analysis, without planning, without a goal, without any form of functional guideline.... just pour out code and hope the compiler is smart/dumb enough to prevent you from making mistakes? It truly is a sad, sad day if that is the demands of programmers to allow themselves to do that.... it is no wonder programmers can't get over the concurrent hurdle, if thought is to prevented, if planning removed.... :((
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
Is it really that hard to think: readlock() code.... unlock() and writelock() code unlock() is that so mindboggling as to defy description and place unparalleled burden on the programmers?
Actually, yes, I think that is too hard. Way too hard. I'm sure we can both come up with scenarios where even that trivial scenario will fail in a multi processor environment. In complex systems even seemingly trivial scenarios become too complex to analyze correctly.
El Corazon wrote:
You said "thinking" is beyond what most programmers do. That is the most frightening think you have said. The idea that you can program without thought, without analysis, without planning, without a goal, without any form of functional guideline....
That would indeed be very very bad indeed. But what I actually said was
Phil Martin... wrote:
to thoroughly think through any problem requiring a multi threaded solution already places it orders of magnitude in difficult above what the 'average' programmer does
I am just saying that to corectly solve a multithreaded problem requires many many times more effort than a single threaded one.
El Corazon wrote:
just pour out code and hope the compiler is smart/dumb enough to prevent you from making mistakes?
No way. Wasn't suggeting it and never would. I want as much of my code to be formally correct before it even touches a compiler. Hence my advocacy for better, easier, and less error prone concurrency constructs.
El Corazon wrote:
It is simply a change in thought.
And I am in total agreement - the main ingredient required is a change in thought processes to tackle the future in concurrency. I just happen to think what we should be thinking about is different to what you think we should be thinking about :) - Phil
-
Phil Martin... wrote:
Working with higher level constructs
except that the higher level constructs simply reduce everything to mutexed operations or fully open operations not allowing you the choice. You still end up with lock-stepped threads removing all performance benefit of your threading, except now you have no way to fix it. You can go higher and higher, but the net result is still the same, without thought, you have nothing. You do not have to have a fine grain analysis of mutexes and semaphores, you should know where to use them, and use them only there. You learn, through thought, what needs protection, what does not. Do you need a read-many, write once lock? no problem, use it. Do you really need a mutual exlusion lock, fine, then use it. The problem is not the low level construct, but the fact that programs are written without thought and then massive numbers of mutex and semaphores are added trial and error fashion until the code works. If you want higher-level, use a threaded class with all the controls built in, then reuse it. But you still have the low-grain control if you need it. Thought allows you to know when to use it, when not to.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
How exactly do functional languages get compiled? AIUI the way they're built every operation is fundamentally atomic and independent and that they scale to N processor systems without requiring any code changes.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Um[^]? Check the first table.
Well, I was trying to find it visiting. www.java.com. I won't even bother with a clickety. Don't waste your time. Marc
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Um[^]? Check the first table.
Well, I was trying to find it visiting. www.java.com. I won't even bother with a clickety. Don't waste your time. Marc
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Um[^]? Check the first table.
Well, I was trying to find it visiting. www.java.com. I won't even bother with a clickety. Don't waste your time. Marc
Done it first visit, they must have been listening to you:
- Visit http://www.java.com[^]
- Click "Free Download"
- If pops up asking to install say no
- Under the first picture after "Not the right operating system?" click the "See all Java downloads here"
- Voila!
-
Done it first visit, they must have been listening to you:
- Visit http://www.java.com[^]
- Click "Free Download"
- If pops up asking to install say no
- Under the first picture after "Not the right operating system?" click the "See all Java downloads here"
- Voila!
Ed.Poore wrote:
If pops up asking to install say no
That step only appears if you don't have Java installed. If you do, it goes immediately to a "Verify Java" screen. So, if you don't, and you go ahead and install, thinking you'll get the option to save the installation to disk, you're screwed. :) Marc
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
If pops up asking to install say no
That step only appears if you don't have Java installed. If you do, it goes immediately to a "Verify Java" screen. So, if you don't, and you go ahead and install, thinking you'll get the option to save the installation to disk, you're screwed. :) Marc
-
Rohde wrote:
Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned.
Seconded. Every time I hear someone say "Threaded programming is easy!" or "I know all about that threading stuff", I just cry a little inside. Large applications built on those peoples training is a scary sight to behold!
Rohde wrote:
this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped.
Since moving to .Net in a serious way, probably the biggest thing I miss from Java land is the concurrency library. It was so much easier to think in terms of higher level constructs than to think in terms of semaphores and mutexes. I really miss it! I haven't noticed a few similar structures appearing, but I still have a soft spot in my heart of Java. - Phil
Phil Martin... wrote:
the biggest thing I miss from Java land is the concurrency library. It was so much easier to think in terms of higher level constructs than to think in terms of semaphores and mutexes. I really miss it!
I don't understand that. I did several years of work in Java back in 2000/2001 and I remember multi-threading seemed very similar to working with Win32 synchronization kernel objects of the same time period.
-
How exactly do functional languages get compiled? AIUI the way they're built every operation is fundamentally atomic and independent and that they scale to N processor systems without requiring any code changes.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
dan neely wrote:
is fundamentally atomic and independent and that they scale to N processor systems without requiring any code changes.
everything is independent, but not atomic. Atomic functionality provides the realism that this code must not be executed on any core/processor/thread other than one and only one at a time. It is the core of any multi-threaded operation. All lower level constructs must be atomic to prevent co-ownership. At the higher level compilers would take
atomic
{
code();
}and at the lower level
lock()
code();
unlock()These are functionally equivalent atomic operations for a given code() call. There is no automatic parallelizing function given that some loops do not scale well, you do not want to parallelize all loops or you get more problems. There is an auto-parallel option on the Intel compilers, however it rarely gains you as much performance as a bit of thought. for instance:
#pragma omp parallel for default(none) \
private(i,j,sum) shared(m,n,a,b,c)
for (i=0; i
looks complicated, but it tells the compiler which is shared variables, which are private, this allows the routine to be parallelized across N cores with minimal code-change, all it requires is a little upfront "though" on what is parallelizable. Auto-parallelize would simply skip the for-loop recognizing that it was beyond scope of the auto-parallelize, where-as:for (i=0; i
would auto-parallelize seeing only one major variable, and mostly constants. But that might not gain you much since that is probably an initialization or clear routine and called infrequently. the routine with the guts above is the one you want to parallelize and it simply needs a bit of "help" to the compiler to do the rest of the work. In the end you know, as the programmer, what is dynamic, and what is constant, what is changing via other threads, what is local, etc. Simply giving that a bit of thought and telling the compiler what to do with it will compile to N processors. But auto-parallelize is rare, and even still rarely as good as a bit of forethought.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -
Rohde wrote:
Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned.
Seconded. Every time I hear someone say "Threaded programming is easy!" or "I know all about that threading stuff", I just cry a little inside. Large applications built on those peoples training is a scary sight to behold!
Rohde wrote:
this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped.
Since moving to .Net in a serious way, probably the biggest thing I miss from Java land is the concurrency library. It was so much easier to think in terms of higher level constructs than to think in terms of semaphores and mutexes. I really miss it! I haven't noticed a few similar structures appearing, but I still have a soft spot in my heart of Java. - Phil
Phil Martin... wrote:
Every time I hear someone say "Threaded programming is easy!" or "I know all about that threading stuff", I just cry a little inside.
Shucks, y'oughtn'ta cry over exaggeration and braggadocio, 's just the way some people communicate! Sure threads aren't easy, nothing worthwhile in this game is easy... the point is, it is worthwhile. I shudder though, every time i hear someone discouraged from using threads because "they're hard". So what? Usable UIs are hard, reliable command parsers are hard, robust network communication is hard, reliable serialization is hard, programming is hard. But oh, so useful. :)
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
Phil Martin... wrote:
the biggest thing I miss from Java land is the concurrency library. It was so much easier to think in terms of higher level constructs than to think in terms of semaphores and mutexes. I really miss it!
I don't understand that. I did several years of work in Java back in 2000/2001 and I remember multi-threading seemed very similar to working with Win32 synchronization kernel objects of the same time period.
I am referring to java.util.concurrent There are a number of common threads (ha! I'm so punny!) with java.util.concurrent and some of the .net framework, but I haven't found all the replacements yet. But this is getting dangerously close to non-lounge talk. Naughty us! - Phil
-
Phil Martin... wrote:
Every time I hear someone say "Threaded programming is easy!" or "I know all about that threading stuff", I just cry a little inside.
Shucks, y'oughtn'ta cry over exaggeration and braggadocio, 's just the way some people communicate! Sure threads aren't easy, nothing worthwhile in this game is easy... the point is, it is worthwhile. I shudder though, every time i hear someone discouraged from using threads because "they're hard". So what? Usable UIs are hard, reliable command parsers are hard, robust network communication is hard, reliable serialization is hard, programming is hard. But oh, so useful. :)
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
Most people are probably looking for
vbMultiThreadedControland won't be happy until they can drag/drop it onto their application and be done. :laugh:-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Phil Martin... wrote:
Every time I hear someone say "Threaded programming is easy!" or "I know all about that threading stuff", I just cry a little inside.
Shucks, y'oughtn'ta cry over exaggeration and braggadocio, 's just the way some people communicate! Sure threads aren't easy, nothing worthwhile in this game is easy... the point is, it is worthwhile. I shudder though, every time i hear someone discouraged from using threads because "they're hard". So what? Usable UIs are hard, reliable command parsers are hard, robust network communication is hard, reliable serialization is hard, programming is hard. But oh, so useful. :)
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
I'm totally with you on that one. I encourage just about everyone I meet to use concurrency, and boy do I get some strange looks from the McDonalds staff. They'll thank me one day though :) It is very worth while, and I don't design any system now without a fundamental underpinning of concurrency. And I probably stuff it up more often than not, but hey, it's all good fun. And I never want to discourage people, I just want people to be aware it isn't the easiest thing in the world, and you should respect them threadsies. And you are right, writing most anything in a really robust way automatically makes it hard! I also have italics envy. - Phil
-
I'm totally with you on that one. I encourage just about everyone I meet to use concurrency, and boy do I get some strange looks from the McDonalds staff. They'll thank me one day though :) It is very worth while, and I don't design any system now without a fundamental underpinning of concurrency. And I probably stuff it up more often than not, but hey, it's all good fun. And I never want to discourage people, I just want people to be aware it isn't the easiest thing in the world, and you should respect them threadsies. And you are right, writing most anything in a really robust way automatically makes it hard! I also have italics envy. - Phil
-
Most people are probably looking for
vbMultiThreadedControland won't be happy until they can drag/drop it onto their application and be done. :laugh:-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
See: BackgroundWorker drag'n'drop tour[^]... :doh:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
well that's a start, but if you drag a
vbMultiThreadedControlonto your existing crufty more or less upgraded to VB6 app it will magically run 4x faster on a quad core with no code changes whatsoever required. Just leave work early, goto the local bar and buy a Bud.-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Most people are probably looking for
vbMultiThreadedControland won't be happy until they can drag/drop it onto their application and be done. :laugh:-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
dan neely wrote:
Most people are probably looking for vbMultiThreadedControl and won't be happy until they can drag/drop it onto their application and be done.
Yes, the phrase 'most people' because it's fact probably 10% of VB users actually come from a development background (i.estudied at college/uni) that's why VB projects end up being a archetictural disasters.
P Think of the environment; please don't print this message unless you really need to.
-
Rohde wrote:
but it's still a waste of my time doing manuel memory management if I don't really need the speed it buys me - it's more useful spending time domain programming/modelling. But hey I guess some of you need the ego boost you get from new/delete/RAII and other idioms.
Ah.... you are a true visionary :rolleyes: The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbered :-D :jig: :jig: :-D
led mike wrote:
Ah.... you are a true visionary The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbered
Gee, I come to this site to read about java and get some c++ programmer telling everyone the sky is falling. I'll tell you why I like c#, It lets me hire programmers who pump out a lot of code so we can test ideas we have quick and fast without the I AM A COMPUTER GOD mentality of c++ programmers. (only about 25% of the stuff I do is on windows) C# programs tend to be much more reliable and less buggy than stuff written on C++ in a much shorter time. All compiler and runtime yes? Kinda eliminates some of the need for tweaking a piece of soft so it runs on everything, if it compiled, it will be pretty stable and get the job done... As for the link to the end of the world processors wont get any faster, hmmm, do you mean to say that for once, there will be time to catch up with the hardware? Obviously when it becomes a real issue,.. Kinda sounds like keyboard envy to me ;-) ah,, what was that about Java? Ohh, yeah kinds look like a 20+ mb download and a complete reinstall with no net :-( i couldn't find anything that broke up the updates for you to download, product continuity, why give yourself a bad name with manual updates I guess.
-
So, is this[^] the only way to obtain a Java runtime installation package, that doesn't require Internet connectivity? :sigh: Why, oh why, is this so difficult? [edit] I found this[^] link (as Rohde also pointed out) but I can't figure out how to get there from the home page unless Java is not actually already installed. I'm trying really hard here not to criticize the general "we hate Microsoft" community, but this is so friggin' typical of these sites. [/edit] Marc -- modified at 11:17 Monday 2nd July, 2007
Marc, This is a guess, but it looks like the link for the entire package. I haven't installed this today, but it does look like the link for the entire package to be downloaded then run as an executable. http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp Hope this helps. As for the flamers: You all say "right tool for the right job" but you don't demonstrate that level of knowledge with your posts. Java - Has a GC, however it runs whenever it wants to. Not just when memory is getting full. This can be disastrous when communicating serially with a device. C++ - No GC. This can be hazardous since mistakes do happen and you might run out of memory. Java was supposed to kill C++. C# was to kill Java. I don't see any bodies anywhere. Each of the languages has its warts and short comings. Not sure why they couldn't get OO right by the time C# was implemented, but then again they were not shooting for write once, run anywhere either. You all need to step back and evaluate the landscape. Choose the language that fits the project. Your managers will gasp but that "should" be how it goes. I'm a C programmer btw, but have programmed in all (meaning wrote meaningful programs) except C#. Back to Java: The installation of the JDK (above) allows you to develop. So its not as easy to attain and setup. But the JRE is mostly seamless as a browser plugin, so anyone who writes it off as "too hard to install" must be talking about the JDK not the JRE. I hope this helps you Marc.
-
I am referring to java.util.concurrent There are a number of common threads (ha! I'm so punny!) with java.util.concurrent and some of the .net framework, but I haven't found all the replacements yet. But this is getting dangerously close to non-lounge talk. Naughty us! - Phil
Phil Martin... wrote:
I am referring to java.util.concurrent
Ah, I think that was added after my Java stint. When I started there were all sorts of things missing like the sort interface. What is it, like IComparable, ISortable or something? I never understand everyone whining about lack of library encapsulation. When there was no sort interface in Java I just wrote my own. It took very little time and after it was added to the SDK it looked very similar to the one I did so porting was minimal. I think for many novice developers, they started after all these large libraries already existed. They never knew the days when you wrote your own libraries so when a library doesn't have some feature they get stuck, like a pig at an empty trough, they starve because they aren't hunters.