Java runtime intranet installation? [found it, sort of]
-
Matt Newman wrote:
Thats opinion not fact, I personally think c++ is easier.
I don't agree. Some of Java features simply makes some stuff much easier than C++, and honestly I think a majority of programmers would agree. That doesn't mean Java is better than C++ but it means that the disrespect for Java's influence on the development ecosystem is not just misplaced but lauhghable (and I'm not even a Java programmer!)
Matt Newman wrote:
How many times has Microsoft been mentioned so far in this thread? Twice, and it was you who brought it up.
It's fact that most of you guys feel so great if you can diss Java (and VB). Herd mentality just sucks.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
It's fact that most of you guys feel so great if you can diss Java (and VB). Herd mentality just sucks.
Tell your sob story to your garbage collector... you can't handle the memory management... you best stop now script kiddie or you might end up having pointer nightmares.
-
Rohde wrote:
What about just downloading the offline installation package?
Finally found that link a bit ago too. Under "not your operating system". Sigh. That was obvious. Marc
Yeah, it's a bit strange I agree - I think it's because they are trying to install it automatically on your system, and if you've already got it installed (as in your case) it can be a puzzle finding the download package.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Rohde wrote:
It's fact that most of you guys feel so great if you can diss Java (and VB). Herd mentality just sucks.
Tell your sob story to your garbage collector... you can't handle the memory management... you best stop now script kiddie or you might end up having pointer nightmares.
Thanks for the concern :-D but I don't program in Java. I do program in C# though which has a GC, but I also program quite a lot in C++ and I have no problem with manual memory management, 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.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Thanks for the concern :-D but I don't program in Java. I do program in C# though which has a GC, but I also program quite a lot in C++ and I have no problem with manual memory management, 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.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde 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
-
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 Clifton wrote:
I can't figure out how to get there from the home page unless Java is not actually already installed.
It's the first Google search result for "jre download" :rolleyes: I always keep a copy of the offline installer so I don't have to keep re-downloading the damn thing so I wasn't aware there was any other kind.
I enjoy occasionally wandering around randomly, and often find that when I do so, I get to where I wanted to be [^]. Awasu 2.3 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project. 50% discount on the paid editions for CP members!
-
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:
The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbere
I agree. Multi-threaded development is the next "hurdle" for us, and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned. Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming - this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped. And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
led mike wrote:
The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbere
I agree. Multi-threaded development is the next "hurdle" for us, and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned. Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming - this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped. And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
are you also waiting for 3D/4D graphics support in the C++ standard library? stereo sound, perhaps even 7.1 stereo sound? I know it would be nice to have the language do everything for you, but it isn't going to happen. When you try to make everything too easy, you get code bloat from the complexity internal to making it easier. This is actually why the problems with Java. OpenMP has been around for a long time, and is available on most platforms, if you don't want that, there are Operating system level threading. Everything is there for threading right now. But there is no magic bullet that will *poof* make all your software automatically massively parallel, efficient, and never worry about reentrancy. Yes, I think the C++ standard library should focus on rentrant code, I think all libraries should -- we've seen the end of the single core. But there will ever be a point where you end up going to a 3rd party library or a platform specific one, because there is always something new. OpenMP is one of the easier methods of multi-threaded programming, it seems complex because it has so many options. But that is the point, you can parallelize a for loop to many cores, and/or run asynchronous threads, choice allows you the power to parallelize efficiently once you learn the tools. If you are waiting for everyone to do that learning for you and then offer you a magical construct that self-parallelizes your code, you have a very long wait.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
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
:laugh: Do either of these shortcuts help Marc? Online version: http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=11145[^] Offline version: http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=11193[^]
Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Walliams (Little Britain) -
Rohde wrote:
And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
are you also waiting for 3D/4D graphics support in the C++ standard library? stereo sound, perhaps even 7.1 stereo sound? I know it would be nice to have the language do everything for you, but it isn't going to happen. When you try to make everything too easy, you get code bloat from the complexity internal to making it easier. This is actually why the problems with Java. OpenMP has been around for a long time, and is available on most platforms, if you don't want that, there are Operating system level threading. Everything is there for threading right now. But there is no magic bullet that will *poof* make all your software automatically massively parallel, efficient, and never worry about reentrancy. Yes, I think the C++ standard library should focus on rentrant code, I think all libraries should -- we've seen the end of the single core. But there will ever be a point where you end up going to a 3rd party library or a platform specific one, because there is always something new. OpenMP is one of the easier methods of multi-threaded programming, it seems complex because it has so many options. But that is the point, you can parallelize a for loop to many cores, and/or run asynchronous threads, choice allows you the power to parallelize efficiently once you learn the tools. If you are waiting for everyone to do that learning for you and then offer you a magical construct that self-parallelizes your code, you have a very long wait.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
You do know that threading will be part of C++0x, right? This is not about "everyone to do that learning for me" but about C++ having support for threading built in. Pretty much everybody on the C++ committee agree that the lack of threading support is a major problem for C++. But hey, why don't we just code in assembler?
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
You do know that threading will be part of C++0x, right? This is not about "everyone to do that learning for me" but about C++ having support for threading built in. Pretty much everybody on the C++ committee agree that the lack of threading support is a major problem for C++. But hey, why don't we just code in assembler?
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
But hey, why don't we just code in assembler?
You sure you aren't a Java programmer? :rolleyes: That comment sure sounds like one. Yes, "threading" will be part of C++, as in "asynchronous threads" without much support for additional constructs. Simple mutex will definately be there, they are still arguing over readwrite locks, and other mechanisms. But it will not be more than you have NOW, and probably much less than you have available NOW. I never stopped doing graphics because C++ committee had not standardized it into their library, nor did I ignore threading until forced to do so by multi-core. I've been parallel, even massively parallel from the sound of it, longer than you have been programming. Nothing beats learning. No one prevents you from learning how to do threading effectively, except YOU. The standards committee can argue until we all grow old, and if you are simply waiting for them before you learn to do threading right, I suggest you retire now. Programming is at the heart making the most out of what you have available, not passing the buck to a committee who take 10 years to agree on what you should have done yourself over the last 10 years.
_________________________ 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:
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:
The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbered
Yeah right. As if there won't be a "processor core" set of libraries in .net framework. Give me a break.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
led mike wrote:
The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbere
I agree. Multi-threaded development is the next "hurdle" for us, and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned. Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming - this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped. And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned.
I've been doing mult-threaded development since 1995. I never envisioned it as anything but complex. That is probably because I "read about it first, studied it first" before I started writing anything. Someone here on CP once posted a reply to the question "what is the difference between a programmer and a software engineer". He said something like: "At the start of a project the first thing a programmer does is write code. The first thing an engineer does is think."
Rohde wrote:
Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming
any and all aspects of software development. They are Script Kiddies, also known as VBers.
-
Rohde wrote:
But hey, why don't we just code in assembler?
You sure you aren't a Java programmer? :rolleyes: That comment sure sounds like one. Yes, "threading" will be part of C++, as in "asynchronous threads" without much support for additional constructs. Simple mutex will definately be there, they are still arguing over readwrite locks, and other mechanisms. But it will not be more than you have NOW, and probably much less than you have available NOW. I never stopped doing graphics because C++ committee had not standardized it into their library, nor did I ignore threading until forced to do so by multi-core. I've been parallel, even massively parallel from the sound of it, longer than you have been programming. Nothing beats learning. No one prevents you from learning how to do threading effectively, except YOU. The standards committee can argue until we all grow old, and if you are simply waiting for them before you learn to do threading right, I suggest you retire now. Programming is at the heart making the most out of what you have available, not passing the buck to a committee who take 10 years to agree on what you should have done yourself over the last 10 years.
_________________________ 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:
You sure you aren't a Java programmer?
I'm sure. But on the other hand I'm not too proud to stand on the shoulders of giants.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Marc Clifton wrote:
I can't figure out how to get there from the home page unless Java is not actually already installed.
It's the first Google search result for "jre download" :rolleyes: I always keep a copy of the offline installer so I don't have to keep re-downloading the damn thing so I wasn't aware there was any other kind.
I enjoy occasionally wandering around randomly, and often find that when I do so, I get to where I wanted to be [^]. Awasu 2.3 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project. 50% discount on the paid editions for CP members!
Taka Muraoka wrote:
It's the first Google search result for "jre download"
Sigh. I guess I haven't had it hammered into me: the vendor's website is useless, use google to find what you want on the vendor's website.
Taka Muraoka wrote:
I always keep a copy of the offline installer so I don't have to keep re-downloading
That's what I was trying to do too. Marc
-
Rohde wrote:
and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned.
I've been doing mult-threaded development since 1995. I never envisioned it as anything but complex. That is probably because I "read about it first, studied it first" before I started writing anything. Someone here on CP once posted a reply to the question "what is the difference between a programmer and a software engineer". He said something like: "At the start of a project the first thing a programmer does is write code. The first thing an engineer does is think."
Rohde wrote:
Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming
any and all aspects of software development. They are Script Kiddies, also known as VBers.
led mike wrote:
The first thing an engineer does is think
If only we had more of that!! :doh:
_________________________ 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:
and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned.
I've been doing mult-threaded development since 1995. I never envisioned it as anything but complex. That is probably because I "read about it first, studied it first" before I started writing anything. Someone here on CP once posted a reply to the question "what is the difference between a programmer and a software engineer". He said something like: "At the start of a project the first thing a programmer does is write code. The first thing an engineer does is think."
Rohde wrote:
Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming
any and all aspects of software development. They are Script Kiddies, also known as VBers.
led mike wrote:
I've been doing mult-threaded development since 1995. I never envisioned it as anything but complex.
thinking on this some more, I have a slight problem with this, but only slight, I think it is a matter of semantics and point-of-view. I don't look at threading as complex, though massively parallel can be at times, rather threading requires thought. You can get away with a lot of bad practices in single threads because it only executes one mistake at a time and all you loose is time. But when you parallelize your code, mistakes build upon mistakes. It is still easy to thread, but you can no longer program without thought. However, I still hear demands for compilers to parallelize people's code at GDC, and Intel reminds everyone that OpenMP has been there for nearly a decade now, but there is no magic bullet. You can always mutex() a mistake to lock it out from being executed in parallel and crashing your program, which again shows the differences in programming methodology. If you build it correctly, you minimize mutexes and atomic operations, but that requires thought and planning. Or you just start writing code, ignore thinking, and anywhere your program crashes in a thread you atomic() wrap it via C++0x or mutex() it, or something similar in your platform. Rather than fix it, you simply try to prevent it from crashing, because if it compiles, it is obviously "right" and bug free.... :(( If only we taught thinking to programmers now. :sigh:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
led mike wrote:
The free lunch is OVER script kiddies days are numbere
I agree. Multi-threaded development is the next "hurdle" for us, and the last couple of years with threaded programming in especially Java and C# has shown that it is way more complex than first envisioned. Many people are really underestimating the difficulties of multi threaded programming - this was also evident in the Java 5 release where the thread model was totally revamped. And it is a disaster that we are still waiting for support for multi threaded programming in the C++ standard library.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde 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
-
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
-
led mike wrote:
I've been doing mult-threaded development since 1995. I never envisioned it as anything but complex.
thinking on this some more, I have a slight problem with this, but only slight, I think it is a matter of semantics and point-of-view. I don't look at threading as complex, though massively parallel can be at times, rather threading requires thought. You can get away with a lot of bad practices in single threads because it only executes one mistake at a time and all you loose is time. But when you parallelize your code, mistakes build upon mistakes. It is still easy to thread, but you can no longer program without thought. However, I still hear demands for compilers to parallelize people's code at GDC, and Intel reminds everyone that OpenMP has been there for nearly a decade now, but there is no magic bullet. You can always mutex() a mistake to lock it out from being executed in parallel and crashing your program, which again shows the differences in programming methodology. If you build it correctly, you minimize mutexes and atomic operations, but that requires thought and planning. Or you just start writing code, ignore thinking, and anywhere your program crashes in a thread you atomic() wrap it via C++0x or mutex() it, or something similar in your platform. Rather than fix it, you simply try to prevent it from crashing, because if it compiles, it is obviously "right" and bug free.... :(( If only we taught thinking to programmers now. :sigh:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I reckon you hit the nail right on the head as to where the real problem is. The requirement 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'm not sure however that forcing everyone to think through at that fine grain level is necessarily the right way to go. Ideally, it would be the perfect solution, but more cost effective ways will emerge. Working with higher level constructs instead of the very error prone mutexes and semaphores, wait/notifies , I think will be part of the so called "magic bullet". If we can build our software with pieces that we know agree with concurrency, then we have a far better chance of building it correctly. - Phil
-
I reckon you hit the nail right on the head as to where the real problem is. The requirement 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'm not sure however that forcing everyone to think through at that fine grain level is necessarily the right way to go. Ideally, it would be the perfect solution, but more cost effective ways will emerge. Working with higher level constructs instead of the very error prone mutexes and semaphores, wait/notifies , I think will be part of the so called "magic bullet". If we can build our software with pieces that we know agree with concurrency, then we have a far better chance of building it correctly. - 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)