What's wrong with Java?
-
enforcement of byte order. clunky base runtimes. a template engine that is source level so *could* be as powerful as C++'s and better than C#s but sadly, isn't. and personally, it just feels stifling somehow. i find myself getting into "the zone" in C# much more quickly than java, and staying there longer. I think part of it is the tools. Vstudio is just great though i've never used intelliJ. Eclipse is garbage, IMO. it always crashes on me if i try to use extensions, and it feels open source - designed by 100 different people. so i think a big part for me is the tools. If it weren't for all that, I'd probably prefer it to C# simply because of the amount of "cool code" or otherwise code or libraries I could have found very useful but were java only.
Real programmers use butterflies
Quote:
so i think a big part for me is the tools
I started out using Eclipse, but then I noticed many Java developers were switching to IntelliJ. Then I switched to IntelliJ. I will never go back to Eclipse. Try IntelliJ if you ever again need to do some JavaFX.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
-
You realize this thread is not about cameras? :laugh: Sorry - just messing with you!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
This is not ilovenikon.com?, well then never mind! :) said Rosanna Weekend Update: Roseanne Roseannadanna on Smoking - SNL - YouTube[^]
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
-
It's like the ongoing dispute between Nikon and Canon users as to which is best. They are both excellent cameras it's just a matter of preference...but Nikon is way better. :)
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
Nikon is unusable. Pentax is the only true path.
-
I don't understand the snarky comments one sees about Java. :confused: I am well versed in programming both in C# (Visual Studio 2019) and JavaFx (IntelliJ IDE). I enjoy both equally. There must be something wrong with me! :sigh: :laugh:
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
There are two main issues to me: 1) versioning -- difficult to know which version to run and what functionality I will have -- this is especially after Oracle took over and then it split even more with the OpenJDK and all that nonsense. It's quite difficult. Along with versioning it is difficult to find tools that feel like they are "official". For instance, I am attempting to use JCov (java coverage tool) and it is supposed to be the "official" but very poorly or not documented at all. 2) UI Framework - Oh boy. I remember the original was something like AWT, right? Then JavaFX (but never caught on fully). 3rd party stuff, and controls that are instantly recognizable that they weren't Windows controls. It was all so confusing and there were better options (C#, Visual Studio and MFC, etc). 3) Java Applets they used applets to introduce Java and it was supposed to be gee-whiz. I was like, "a plugin...?? that fails a lot in my browser...?? and needs to be updated constantly...??? which MS doesn't like to support ???" That intro to Java kind of killed it. After that it felt like a slow cumbersome thing with no direct line to components without lots of management. So, over to C#, which was easy. Much of this isn't "fair" to Java, but it is the perception.
-
Quote:
so i think a big part for me is the tools
I started out using Eclipse, but then I noticed many Java developers were switching to IntelliJ. Then I switched to IntelliJ. I will never go back to Eclipse. Try IntelliJ if you ever again need to do some JavaFX.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
Yes, the IDE being Eclipse also made Java a troublesome uptake. Very good point. I started doing Android early on and it was Eclipse-based and it drained all of the happy-happy new energy of a new development platform (Android) and I ran away. Then, they went to Android Studio (intellij) and it was YESS!!!!!!!
-
Nikon is unusable. Pentax is the only true path.
Nay brother let me lead you to the true path of enlightenment. Nikon shall set you free and with your purchase of a new lens you shall receive the blessing of the shutter gods.
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
-
I don't understand the snarky comments one sees about Java. :confused: I am well versed in programming both in C# (Visual Studio 2019) and JavaFx (IntelliJ IDE). I enjoy both equally. There must be something wrong with me! :sigh: :laugh:
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
Tribalism, innit.
-
Nay brother let me lead you to the true path of enlightenment. Nikon shall set you free and with your purchase of a new lens you shall receive the blessing of the shutter gods.
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
Uuuhhh... I have no lenses younger than about twenty years -- and some closer to seventy. My latest camera purchase is a Kodak Vigilant Six-20 (circa 1940). Lately I've been playing with a 4x5 monorail camera from the '60s. I say again, Nikon is unusable -- except maybe by wrong-handed practitioners (like my brother). Having said that, Nikon does make good point-and-shoot cameras, my wife is on her third.
-
Uuuhhh... I have no lenses younger than about twenty years -- and some closer to seventy. My latest camera purchase is a Kodak Vigilant Six-20 (circa 1940). Lately I've been playing with a 4x5 monorail camera from the '60s. I say again, Nikon is unusable -- except maybe by wrong-handed practitioners (like my brother). Having said that, Nikon does make good point-and-shoot cameras, my wife is on her third.
:laugh: I give...
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
-
Uuuhhh... I have no lenses younger than about twenty years -- and some closer to seventy. My latest camera purchase is a Kodak Vigilant Six-20 (circa 1940). Lately I've been playing with a 4x5 monorail camera from the '60s. I say again, Nikon is unusable -- except maybe by wrong-handed practitioners (like my brother). Having said that, Nikon does make good point-and-shoot cameras, my wife is on her third.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I have no lenses younger than about twenty years -- and some closer to seventy.
I held on to silver photography quite long; we had entered the third millennium before I got my first digital SLR, and went from lenses of the 1980s to lenses of the early 2000s. I had one major surprise: The 20 years newer lenses had dramatically improved anti-reflex coating. With my old lenses, I always had to be careful with backlight, or the picture would be completely washed out. With newer lenses, you can more or less point the camera directly at the sun! (But not for long, or it will burn your sensor!) Lenses you buy today have another great improvement: If you in the 1980s showed up with a 600 mm f/6.7 lens, weight 430 grams, about 12 cm long, people would have refused to believe it. My most recent buy is even more than a 600 mm lens, it is a 4x zoom, 150-600 mm. Or ... It is not, it is a 75-300 mm MFT lens. But if you dig up lens test result from the 1980s and earlier, comparing resolution, contrast and sharpness to modern lenses, you may be in for a surprise. There is one area where I sort of miss an old quality: Mechanical. Affordable lenses, sold to photo amateurs like me, have a touch and feeling reflecting the use of plastics. They feel plastic. Not solid, not smooth, the way the old metal stuff felt. (And that is a major reason why they are as lightweight as they are.) I know that I could go for professional lenses at triple the cost, but I am not that active as a photographer.
-
All programming languages are just variations on the theme we know as "assembly language".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I have no lenses younger than about twenty years -- and some closer to seventy.
I held on to silver photography quite long; we had entered the third millennium before I got my first digital SLR, and went from lenses of the 1980s to lenses of the early 2000s. I had one major surprise: The 20 years newer lenses had dramatically improved anti-reflex coating. With my old lenses, I always had to be careful with backlight, or the picture would be completely washed out. With newer lenses, you can more or less point the camera directly at the sun! (But not for long, or it will burn your sensor!) Lenses you buy today have another great improvement: If you in the 1980s showed up with a 600 mm f/6.7 lens, weight 430 grams, about 12 cm long, people would have refused to believe it. My most recent buy is even more than a 600 mm lens, it is a 4x zoom, 150-600 mm. Or ... It is not, it is a 75-300 mm MFT lens. But if you dig up lens test result from the 1980s and earlier, comparing resolution, contrast and sharpness to modern lenses, you may be in for a surprise. There is one area where I sort of miss an old quality: Mechanical. Affordable lenses, sold to photo amateurs like me, have a touch and feeling reflecting the use of plastics. They feel plastic. Not solid, not smooth, the way the old metal stuff felt. (And that is a major reason why they are as lightweight as they are.) I know that I could go for professional lenses at triple the cost, but I am not that active as a photographer.
Yeah, my few auto-focus lenses -- even from the 90s -- are very plastic and cheap-feeling. Near-impossible to use manual-focus. I very much prefer my solid-feeling lenses prior to those. What a lot of today's practitioners don't realize is that increased mass increases inertia which improves stability by reducing shake. The 28-210 zoom I've used since the '80s is 778g and a joy to use. I also didn't buy a DSLR until 2016 -- when Pentax (Ricoh) released the K-1 (full-frame, dontcha know). Once I bought the K-1, I began buying more vintage lenses, mostly Super-Takumars which are as old as I am.
-
From my perspective, that it doesn't let you control things the way C++ does, particularly memory. Other than that, I don't have any issues with it, although I don't know it very well.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.In (very) special cases: Sure. In those cases, you might as well go to assembly language. I learned 30+ years ago that trying to outsmart an optimizing compiler is futile. In my student days, we thought it crazy to write an OS in a "high" level language - but Unix did succeed, and performance was not an issue. So we abandoned assembly. Not entirely; there are cases for assembly because that is the only possible way to get access to certain hardware functions. But going assembly for performance reasons has no place in the third millennium. Today, the same goes for memory. It is almost as difficult to outsmart automatic memory management by "clever" use of malloc/free as to outsmart a compiler - in particular because you have no insight in actual memory fragmentation. The risk of memory leaks is much larger; too many programmers do not master their own memory use as well as they believe (or, they are not enforcing the programming discipline as they should). Again: There are (very) extreme cases where the cost of garbage collection is unacceptable. Usually, memory fragmentation is then unacceptable as well. So you manage your objects e.g. in a static array, dimensioned for a worst case. (I was programming one such C solution - malloc was not accepted by our coding standards. C++ new would have been rejected as well, so the case for C++ was not very strong.) Analogy: When I talk with extreme HiFi buffs, I must admit that 24 bit samples at 96 kHz does have its place, in a professional studio where a sound recording may go through many generations of various processing, mixing etc. for an end result of unknown sample width and frequency. But that is is the studio. It doesn't mean that the music I listen to on my stereo benefits from being in 96/24 format. Similarly: If you write a physical level driver for a 10 Gbps network interface, you probably cannot tolerate GC delays. But for 99.999% of all code written, GC without memory leaks is a lot better than dubious "private" memory management.
-
You realize this thread is not about cameras? :laugh: Sorry - just messing with you!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
-
It's like the ongoing dispute between Nikon and Canon users as to which is best. They are both excellent cameras it's just a matter of preference...but Nikon is way better. :)
The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com
cough cough Pentax cough cough...
I'd rather be phishing!
-
Yeah, my few auto-focus lenses -- even from the 90s -- are very plastic and cheap-feeling. Near-impossible to use manual-focus. I very much prefer my solid-feeling lenses prior to those. What a lot of today's practitioners don't realize is that increased mass increases inertia which improves stability by reducing shake. The 28-210 zoom I've used since the '80s is 778g and a joy to use. I also didn't buy a DSLR until 2016 -- when Pentax (Ricoh) released the K-1 (full-frame, dontcha know). Once I bought the K-1, I began buying more vintage lenses, mostly Super-Takumars which are as old as I am.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The 28-210 zoom I've used since the '80s is 778g and a joy to use.
That was late 1980s, wasn't it? I don't remember anything close to that being available in 1980. Or is my memory wrong? What make / model was it? Old memory from the 1970s: Vivitar announced its Series 1, the 70-210 mm as the first one going to market. A notice in "Fotografi", the major Norwegian amateur photography magazine, reported that the computers doing the lens calculations was expected to complete by the end of April that year(!) (If my memory is correct, it was done on a PDP-11.) My first SLR had a Nikon 43-86mm zoom, well know for its terrible (lack of) sharpness at the edges. The Vivitar Series 1 was by many considered the first major breakthrough in high quality yet affordable zoom lenses. 3X was impressive by that time, 7.5X for a full-format lens was far out of sight.
-
In (very) special cases: Sure. In those cases, you might as well go to assembly language. I learned 30+ years ago that trying to outsmart an optimizing compiler is futile. In my student days, we thought it crazy to write an OS in a "high" level language - but Unix did succeed, and performance was not an issue. So we abandoned assembly. Not entirely; there are cases for assembly because that is the only possible way to get access to certain hardware functions. But going assembly for performance reasons has no place in the third millennium. Today, the same goes for memory. It is almost as difficult to outsmart automatic memory management by "clever" use of malloc/free as to outsmart a compiler - in particular because you have no insight in actual memory fragmentation. The risk of memory leaks is much larger; too many programmers do not master their own memory use as well as they believe (or, they are not enforcing the programming discipline as they should). Again: There are (very) extreme cases where the cost of garbage collection is unacceptable. Usually, memory fragmentation is then unacceptable as well. So you manage your objects e.g. in a static array, dimensioned for a worst case. (I was programming one such C solution - malloc was not accepted by our coding standards. C++ new would have been rejected as well, so the case for C++ was not very strong.) Analogy: When I talk with extreme HiFi buffs, I must admit that 24 bit samples at 96 kHz does have its place, in a professional studio where a sound recording may go through many generations of various processing, mixing etc. for an end result of unknown sample width and frequency. But that is is the studio. It doesn't mean that the music I listen to on my stereo benefits from being in 96/24 format. Similarly: If you write a physical level driver for a 10 Gbps network interface, you probably cannot tolerate GC delays. But for 99.999% of all code written, GC without memory leaks is a lot better than dubious "private" memory management.
Special cases or not, there's no way I'd go to assembler and give up all the things that an OO language like C++ provides. And the special cases I'm thinking of aren't a question of trying to outsmart anything. One of them, in serious production code, was morphing an object to a sibling class in the inheritance hierarchy by changing its
vptr. The objects' memory came from a pool of blocks, not the heap, so objects from both classes fit into the same block. No deep copying, no worries about stale pointers to the object, just abracadabra, and its behavior is now what's needed. :-DRobust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I don't understand the snarky comments one sees about Java. :confused: I am well versed in programming both in C# (Visual Studio 2019) and JavaFx (IntelliJ IDE). I enjoy both equally. There must be something wrong with me! :sigh: :laugh:
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
-
cough cough Pentax cough cough...
I'd rather be phishing!
-
I don't understand the snarky comments one sees about Java. :confused: I am well versed in programming both in C# (Visual Studio 2019) and JavaFx (IntelliJ IDE). I enjoy both equally. There must be something wrong with me! :sigh: :laugh:
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
