What's up with Java programmers, anyway?

Something I've noticed from asking questions on the JDN forums is just how clueless these people are. Of the 50+ responses to posts there, except for maybe 3 or so, I've gotton nothing but non-sequitars, head-scratching, and confused expressions. This isn't limited to the junior members, either - even the veterans there are apt to respond with things like "why would you want to do such a thing?" and the like. And if it doesn't come in a can (ie: some Java package) then your chances of getting a meaningful reply dwindle to mostly zero.

Has C++ just made us better programmers - more inquisitive, pushing our minds to the limits, always searching for better insight, while Java programmers brains turn to jell-o due to non-exposure to the 'low-level details'? Pure speculation. But what I do know is that I'd probably get better Java advice on CBoard!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Has C++ just made us better programmers -

Dunno dude, but I would concurr that cboard stuff is mostly way above the average created on other programming forums, which were probably taken over by trolls years ago. Maybe Java types are hamstrung by a silver spoon?

Could be the nature of the beast. C/C++ seems sort of hardcore/academic to me (I like academic), whereas w/ more "commercial" things there is much less of an establishment/standard/institution to ignore...

I've noticed the same thing.
I think if the Java language was a little better (using some of the good ideas from C++ & other languages like a const keyword, unsigned int types, C++ type casts, real templates, more errors caught at compile-time rather than run-time...) then that would also produce better Java programmers. A lot of Java programs I've seen look very sloppy compared to C++. They seem to rely WAY too much on casting and RTTI rather than better designs that avoid the need for such things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

even the veterans there are apt to respond with things like "why would you want to do such a thing?" and the like.

What kind of questions have been rebuffed by that sort of question?

I hate. I simply hate it so much when peeps interfere with your coding in a way of 'why' >.< Spending a whole post that you'll have to reply before getting a real answer, just to get a 'why I'm doing it', it makes me wanna soak myself in fuel, light myself on fire, run into a wall and die!
Like, all these pro programmers that I know WON'T give simple answers D: I ask them if a .lib contains the data for a .cpp file ( I did yesterday ) and they reply ".lib contains binary code you dumb ........" (not exactly like that, but they think it, I know it!) instead of just giving me a simple NO >.< I loose it, throw away my programming tools and go spend my time playing games or working on my bike >.>

>> I hate. I simply hate it so much when peeps interfere with your coding in a way of 'why' >.< Spending a whole post that you'll have to reply before getting a real answer, just to get a 'why I'm doing it', it makes me wanna soak myself in fuel, light myself on fire, run into a wall and die!

That's...a little extreme, but yes, that sort of captures the frustration.

>> What kind of questions have been rebuffed by that sort of question?

The questions ranged from very basic generic programming issues (eg: How can I make XXX into a generic dispatch mechanism (compile error)?), to class extension logistical problems (eg: How can I derive a class from BufferedImage (it can't be resized)?), to locating language functionality (eg: How to obtain class bytes?), just to name a few. Other than perhaps the last question (which was fairly esoteric, I admit), none of the other questions really deserved that sort of treatment. Just simple, straightforward questions, really. But the majority of the responses wouldn't even address the question at all. Just completely random remarks (just barely passing the turing test), making for a very awkward conversation, to say the least.

Yes, I was extreme 'cause I was ........ed at that my final exam at Game Institute failed 'cause my internet started acting up and disconnected in the end >.> I get to finish the exam over again tho...

An online final exam? I thought even online courses have proctored exams (at least the one I took did).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

while Java programmers brains turn to jell-o due to non-exposure to the 'low-level details'?

I don't know about Java, but I'd concur that PHP definitely has this effect on me. I recently went through my old backups, trying to consolidate them a bit, and glanced at a few C applications I wrote. "what the .... was I doing there" - "how did I do that"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberfish

An online final exam? I thought even online courses have proctored exams (at least the one I took did).

All my tests & exams were online. It was a hell of a lot more convenient for my schedule.

It seems par for the course on most sites that when you ask "How would I do this..." you get "Why do you want to do that..."

In some cases it is necessary as obviously there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, unless that really is your intention. But on the whole it is frustrating, however if you want the answer, sometimes you've got to jump through the hoops (and that is not just online and programming...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuzzBuzz

(and that is not just online and programming...)

Gosh, you mean dysfunctionalism is like -- normal?! Definitely.

It would be nice to expect that programmers would be a little more self consciously rational, but obviously YMMV.

There will be antisocials no matter the programming language. This doesn't reflect badly on Java, just the web site where these unhelpful persons congregate.

CBoard is a strange beast, halfway between the introductory forums where the most advanced question is why we have to return 0 from main(), and the private mailing lists where the super-experienced debate things we won't often encounter.

It's not that the other forums are so much worse. It's that CBoard is so much better. A little optimism, hey? ;)

That's a very noble attitude. But I still have my doubts. :p

Java is in my opinion an inferior language, I believe therefor that the people who choose to make it their primary language will tend to be of inferior intellect.

Now read exactly what i said twice before knee jerk responding to it.

Programming in C/C++ isn't a simple task, not everyone is cut out to be a programmer.

Java assumes the programmers don't know what they are doing, C/C++ assumes they do.

That is the reason they left out things like pointers, unsigned types (not sure about this one), operator overloading, goto, casting to smaller types ("if (a = 5)"), stack allocations... etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberfish

casting to smaller types ("if (a = 5)")

Perhaps more accurately, implicit conversion to types with a smaller range, since one can still type cast explicitly, or in your example, write "if ((a = 5) != 0)" (though either way it looks like a (potential) bug to me :p).

Quote:

Has C++ just made us better programmers - more inquisitive, pushing our minds to the limits, always searching for better insight, while Java programmers brains turn to jell-o due to non-exposure to the 'low-level details'?

Java, being a RAD language, attracts sloppy people. Additionally, more "inquisitive" programmers will soon turn to more sophisticated languages.

"Java is C++ without the guns, knives, and clubs."
-- James Gosling

Greets,
Philip

Yes Java sucks, but unfortunatly I find myself using it an awful lot. Uni requires it, and most of the jobs want it (so it pays to have a private project written in Java).

Things that I find (really) suck:
* No const
* while(0) is a compile error, whereas if(0) is not.
* Casts galore, i.e. with integer/short/long literals. I've seen a few bugs because of this with overloading.
* Generics suck

Quote:

Perhaps more accurately, implicit conversion to types with a smaller range, since one can still type cast explicitly, or in your example, write "if ((a = 5) != 0)" (though either way it looks like a (potential) bug to me ).

haha yeah I meant implicit conversion.

I think it should be up to the compilers to warn about this potential bug (as in C++), instead of not allowing it in the language.

I'm so used to C/C++ that

Code:

if (a == 0)

looks redundant to me :D.

I disagree.
Everyone is fit to be a programmer, some just more than others. No one can't learn that typing

Code:

int main() { }

makes a program execute, and that is programming...

> makes a program execute, and that is programming...
No, I beg to differ. You haven't "programmed the computer" to do anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Java is in my opinion an inferior language

For what? That statement is meaningless without context.

Quote:

, I believe therefor that the people who choose to make it their primary language will tend to be of inferior intellect.

Or perhaps work in an industry/market where it is the predominant language. The Java market is booming right now, much more than C++. Cast aspersions on their intellect if you like, but I might second guess the assertion that a guy making six figures to develop back end web applications for a Fortune 50 company is "dumber" than a hardcore C++ game programmer working twice the hours but making half as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

There will be antisocials no matter the programming language. This doesn't reflect badly on Java, just the web site where these unhelpful persons congregate.

CBoard is a strange beast, halfway between the introductory forums where the most advanced question is why we have to return 0 from main(), and the private mailing lists where the super-experienced debate things we won't often encounter.

It's not that the other forums are so much worse. It's that CBoard is so much better. A little optimism, hey? ;)

I completely agree with this.
If you want a more friendlier forum for java, i would suggest http://www.coderanch.com/forums

Quote:

Originally Posted by medievalelks

The Java market is booming right now, much more than C++. Cast aspersions on their intellect if you like, but I might second guess the assertion that a guy making six figures to develop back end web applications for a Fortune 50 company is "dumber" than a hardcore C++ game programmer working twice the hours but making half as much.

This is some very flawed logic. It seems to me s/he could be dumber, and that that was the whole point of Java (to make it easier for stupid people*), which would certainly explain why it is booming (that and the applet). Getting paid a lot of money in any field has much more to do with circumstance AND GREED than it does intelligence. Being able to take advantage of, eg, your social status, just demonstrates that you should not be classified as "mentally handicapped", not that you are particularly brilliant. Let's say "smart for a pig". Otherwise, the leaders of those Fortune 500 companies must be smarter than sin, as opposed to people who perpetually leverage any (fair or unfair) advantage they can discern, regardless of the wider consequences a more intelligent person might discern. Perhaps they have done a smart job with the economy? Not.

Also, the idea that throwing a lot of money at something (eg by paying some half wit 6 figures) will make it better can quickly be disproven by surfing casually around a few large corporate (or government) web site. Some of them are a total mess on all fronts (functionality, cosmetics, coherence, etc) despite having a price tag in the millions. I don't play games, but I would say by and large game developers have done a much, much more admirable job in developing product during the last decade than "business oriented" web developers, who are just chowing at a trough (I won't blame someone for doing that, but that doesn't mean you merit pride in anything other than your check).

*I really have no idea or opinion about it, but that is the essential claim of Java proponents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zacs7

Things that I find (really) suck:
* No const
* while(0) is a compile error, whereas if(0) is not.

I guess I can agree with the first, unless you're allowed to use tuples, and it's easy like it is in python.

I don't see a problem with a second. All an if(0) statement needs is an else branch to make sense, so why make it an error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

This is some very flawed logic.

I thought one baseless generalization deserved another.

Quote:

Getting paid a lot of money in any field has much more to do with circumstance AND GREED than it does intelligence.

And apparently you agree :-)

My whole point was that language ........ing contests are silly enough without the insulting of an entire base of programmers. I've worked with outstanding Java developers and I've worked with C++ hacks. I don't draw any conclusion from that other than that there are good and bad programmers in the world, and all kinds in between. Language has little to do with it.

Anyway, in my experience the smartest programmers are the ones who know how to use multiple tools well, and know when to use each.

hmm... both if (0) and while (0) sounded suspicious to me, especially after cyberfish raised the issue of Java not allow implicit conversion from int to boolean (among other implicit conversions). A quick check shows that if (0) is not allowed precisely because of the required conversion of int to boolean. while (false) resulted in a compile error due to the code being obviously unreachable.

Perhaps such a decision to make it an error rather than a warning is justified, if indeed static analysis can prove rather than merely suggest that the code is unreachable. (Then again, Snafuist pointed out recently that unreachable code is a valid obfuscation technique.)

There are so many stupid comments in this thread that it makes my head hurt. This C++ elitism doesn't impress anybody, and only does a disservice to yourself.

Quote:

even the veterans there are apt to respond with things like "why would you want to do such a thing?"

We do that all the time on this board. That response usually comes after a question that doesn't make sense within the bounds of the language. Something like, "In C++, how do I call my destructor function?".

>> Perhaps such a decision to make it an error rather than a warning is justified, if indeed static analysis can prove rather than merely suggest that the code is unreachable. (Then again, Snafuist pointed out recently that unreachable code is a valid obfuscation technique.)

I don't know. It seems to me that this should just be a warning. Unreachable code can be useful sometimes for debugging purposes.

>> If you want a more friendlier forum for java, i would suggest Big Moose Saloon

I took a quick look at the site, and it does indeed look promising. Thanks.

>> This C++ elitism doesn't impress anybody, and only does a disservice to yourself.

To be fair, I was really only joking (the Jell-O brained Java programmers bit), but to some degree I do feel that C++ is clearly a superior language. Take a look ar Java generics:

Code:

public static < Type > void foo( Type data ) { Type ref = data, // OK copy = new Type( data ); // Error ref.bar( ); // Error ref.baz = 1024; // Error }

The only way that this can "work" is if you specify the supertype in the declaration! The reason for all of this, of course, is because generics are compiled into bytecode (and reused via "type erasure"). But it still doesn't make sense. A more logical approach would be to either allow a dual facility where compile-time code could use the templates fully but run-time code could only use the more limited "type erasure" feature, or else provide full support with the aid of reflection or whatnot. Instead, the designers of the language chose a half-hearted and, frankly, dim-witted implementation. So while I agree that we probably shouldn't sit around and make fun of people (who could be just as talented as any other programmer), I reserve the right to have an "elitist" attitude with respect to the language itself.

>> We do that all the time on this board.

True, but we usually reserve those sorts of responses for the truly ignorant questions. :)

>> That response usually comes after a question that doesn't make sense within the bounds of the language. Something like, "In C++, how do I call my destructor function?".

Just as a side note, there are some occasions where this is actually necessary (think: std::vector, for one). ;)

>> My whole point was that language ........ing contests are silly enough without the insulting of an entire base of programmers. I've worked with outstanding Java developers and I've worked with C++ hacks. I don't draw any conclusion from that other than that there are good and bad programmers in the world, and all kinds in between. Language has little to do with it. Anyway, in my experience the smartest programmers are the ones who know how to use multiple tools well, and know when to use each.

Agreed.

>> "Java is C++ without the guns, knives, and clubs." -- James Gosling

:p

Quote:

Code:

Type ref = data, // OK copy = new Type( data ); // Error

The only way that this can "work" is if you specify the supertype in the declaration!

Pardon me for butting in but maybe that's not so bad. I'm not very clear on new and how it is different in Java, or "supertype" and if that means what it should in OOP jargon, but it seems like this error is only an error because you're doing too much on one line.

And we all know that's cute in C++ too. Your argument doesn't wash with me.

Of course, it's another thing that's great for obfuscation, but that shouldn't be how we make our preferences.

>> Pardon me for butting in but maybe that's not so bad. I'm not very clear on new and how it is different in Java, or "supertype" and if that means what it should in OOP jargon, but it seems like this error is only an error because you're doing too much on one line.

Java doesn't have "stack-based" objects (except for ints, floats, etc). All variables are references, and as such you have to call 'new' to allocate an object. So the code I posted is actually equivalant to this in C++:

Code:

Type copy = data;

The meaning of "super-type" is the same as in C++. A base class. But my point was, to actually be able to invoke functions (including constructors) or access variables from the object, you would have to change the declaration to something like:

Code:

public static < Type extends Bar > void foo( Type data ) { Type ref = data, // OK copy = new Type( data ); // OK ref.bar( ); // OK ref.baz = 1024; // OK }

...where Bar is an actual type having, at the minimum, this interface:

Code:

public class Bar { Bar( Bar rhs ); void bar( ); int baz; }

In other words, using generics in this case would really buy you nothing, as it is the exact same thing as:

Code:

public static void foo( Bar data ) { Bar ref = data, copy = new Bar( data ); ref.bar( ); ref.baz = 1024; }

[edit]
There is *one* thing it does buy you in this case, and that is to call the constructor of the derived type. But besides that, nothing.
[/edit]

Well I can see why that would be annoying now. It would be easier if you could specify the extension earlier in the code, instead of member by member like that. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

The only way that this can "work" is if you specify the supertype in the declaration! The reason for all of this, of course, is because generics are compiled into bytecode (and reused via "type erasure"). But it still doesn't make sense. A more logical approach would be to either allow a dual facility where compile-time code could use the templates fully but run-time code could only use the more limited "type erasure" feature, or else provide full support with the aid of reflection or whatnot. Instead, the designers of the language chose a half-hearted and, frankly, dim-witted implementation. So while I agree that we probably shouldn't sit around and make fun of people (who could be just as talented as any other programmer), I reserve the right to have an "elitist" attitude with respect to the language itself.

I've always viewed Java as a Bandaid programming language. When they want to add something new like Generics, they need to keep backwards compatibility, so they just put a bandaid on the language. Maybe it's because they're so runtime oriented instead of compile-time oriented?
I'd like to see a whole new version of Java that has the nice rich library that Java currently has but has all the things it's missing like: unsigned types, stack based variables, destructors, the option of passing by value or reference, real templates, const, C++ type casts, operator overloading, typedef, default values for function parameters, a separation of references & pointers instead of the strange reference/pointer mutation they have now...

>> I'd like to see a whole new version of Java that has the nice rich library that Java currently has but has all the things it's missing like: unsigned types, stack based variables, destructors, the option of passing by value or reference, real templates, const, C++ type casts, operator overloading, typedef, default values for function parameters, a separation of references & pointers instead of the strange reference/pointer mutation they have now...

I would love to see those features as well, of course, but that would effectively mean completely overhauling the language, which will probably never happen. Besides that, there are some inherent limitations in the virtual machine itself that indicate that it may not be the "language of the future". Just as an example, the instruction set itself can never exceed 255 unique opcodes, since no bits were reserved to allow for multi-byte encoding (there are ways around this, of course, but it would be an ugly hack), and considering that there are already 200+ existing opcodes, real estate is already pretty scarce. Another problem is the fact that almost everything (relating to sizes/counts) are encoded in 16 bits or less. No function, for instance, can be larger than 65535 bytes. While that may be reasonable in *most* cases, it's nonetheless not very 'forward-thinking' (and would certainly make things such as inline functions practically impossible to implement in future versions). Other width-related limitations have even led to the introduction of things such as special 'widening' opcodes, adding yet another layer of complexity and inefficiency to the environment. And as time goes on, computers become more powerful, memory models grow, etc, these problems are just going to get worse - all of the sudden you could be faced with a development tool that just can't handle it. Which isn't to say that these problems can't be fixed, but it will definitely require some drastic changes to the specification itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

I would love to see those features as well, of course, but that would effectively mean completely overhauling the language, which will probably never happen. Besides that, there are some inherent limitations in the virtual machine itself that indicate that it may not be the "language of the future". Just as an example, the instruction set itself can never exceed 255 unique opcodes, since no bits were reserved to allow for multi-byte encoding (there are ways around this, of course, but it would be an ugly hack), and considering that there are already 200+ existing opcodes, real estate is already pretty scarce. Another problem is the fact that almost everything (relating to sizes/counts) are encoded in 16 bits or less. No function, for instance, can be larger than 65535 bytes. While that may be reasonable in *most* cases, it's nonetheless not very 'forward-thinking' (and would certainly make things such as inline functions practically impossible to implement in future versions). Other width-related limitations have even led to the introduction of things such as special 'widening' opcodes, adding yet another layer of complexity and inefficiency to the environment. And as time goes on, computers become more powerful, memory models grow, etc, these problems are just going to get worse - all of the sudden you could be faced with a development tool that just can't handle it. Which isn't to say that these problems can't be fixed, but it will definitely require some drastic changes to the specification itself.

I'm not saying they should add those features to the current Java code. I don't think Java is flexible enough to handle those kinds of changes. They need to break backward compatibility and create a whole new Java. Isn't that what happened when they moved from the original Java to Java 2?

I'm pretty sure that Java1 is *binary* compatible with Java2, but I think I remember reading somewhere that some of the Java1 packages were deprecated (which of course would break an application just the same), but I'm 100% certain about that. I'd have to look it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpjust

I'd like to see a whole new version of Java that has the nice rich library that Java currently has but has all the things it's missing like: unsigned types, stack based variables, destructors, the option of passing by value or reference, real templates, const, C++ type casts, operator overloading, typedef, default values for function parameters, a separation of references & pointers instead of the strange reference/pointer mutation they have now...

That would just turn Java into C++ with garbage collection. What would be the point of doing this? The only real distinction between C++ and Java at that point would be the platform-independent nature of the binaries. But a platform-independent C++ is still C++, not Java. We just don't have it yet. (The garbage collection is just an add-on which could be suitably specified)

In fact, what you're talking about seems an awful lot like "Managed C++" by Microsoft. Seriously -- go have a look and tell me it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

The meaning of "super-type" is the same as in C++. A base class. But my point was, to actually be able to invoke functions (including constructors) or access variables from the object, you would have to change the declaration to something like:

Code:

public static < Type extends Bar > void foo( Type data ) { Type ref = data, // OK copy = new Type( data ); // OK ref.bar( ); // OK ref.baz = 1024; // OK }

That's still invalid. You can't allocate an object of a parameter type.

There's nothing wrong with F-bound generics. It has slightly different applications than parametric generics (as C++ has), and it fits in better with a purely object-oriented language like Java. Once you understand the principle behind Java's generics, you can also trivially see why you need a type bound in the example above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

>> "Java is C++ without the guns, knives, and clubs." -- James Gosling

:p

Java is C++ without the guns, knives, clubs, hammers, alan wreneches, welder, or cutting torch. Java gives you one hell of a set of regular wrenches, but they only fit 1/2 inch and 9/16, and it gives you a nail gun, but it can only put nails in 1 inch plywood or 2x4's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

That would just turn Java into C++ with garbage collection. What would be the point of doing this? The only real distinction between C++ and Java at that point would be the platform-independent nature of the binaries. But a platform-independent C++ is still C++, not Java. We just don't have it yet. (The garbage collection is just an add-on which could be suitably specified)

In fact, what you're talking about seems an awful lot like "Managed C++" by Microsoft. Seriously -- go have a look and tell me it's not.

Exactly! I'd like a platform independent C++ with the huge library of Java. We could call it "C?" ;)

Quote:

That would just turn Java into C++ with garbage collection. What would be the point of doing this? The only real distinction between C++ and Java at that point would be the platform-independent nature of the binaries. But a platform-independent C++ is still C++, not Java. We just don't have it yet. (The garbage collection is just an add-on which could be suitably specified) In fact, what you're talking about seems an awful lot like "Managed C++" by Microsoft. Seriously -- go have a look and tell me it's not.

C++ with garbage collection, sounds like C# eh? No wait, C# is java with a new name and proprietary languge protectign it. I'm so confused, what was the need that was so great we needed a new flavor of language gain?

Anyway, does this stereotype apply if you know, and use, say Java and C/C++? :)

If so, :)

If not, :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyda

I don't know about Java, but I'd concur that PHP definitely has this effect on me. I recently went through my old backups, trying to consolidate them a bit, and glanced at a few C applications I wrote. "what the .... was I doing there" - "how did I do that"...

Ever thought that you wrote the code poorly and now as a detached observer (having been detached over the years) you can no longer understand the rotted code?

Happens when I look at my early college programs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by indigo0086

Ever thought that you wrote the code poorly and now as a detached observer (having been detached over the years) you can no longer understand the rotted code?

I think Nyda's anecdote was meant to illustrate that his/her old code, written in C, was "better" than his/her new code, written in PHP.

EDIT:
Ah, but you are saying that the old code is not actually better, but merely so bad to the point that Nyda was unable to understand it even after accumulating more programming experience and presumably having a refresher on C?

Before I read "Clean Code" I could have made the same assertion on the effect C# has on my coding abilities. Now it's possible that I just wrote really bad code back then.

*stares in awe at "god functions" 100+ lines long*

I think Java vs C++ vs C# vs Aliens vs Preadator yields the axiom. "No matter who win's, this is a stupid argument"

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpjust

Exactly! I'd like a platform independent C++ with the huge library of Java. We could call it "C?" ;)

I don't think a VM-based C++ environment is necessarily a bad idea. I just don't think Java is the correct starting point for such an endeavor. As was said, C# is already sort of what you're talking about. But I don't want a C++-like language, I want C++, but targetted to a virtual machine.

Native garbage collection is probably a fine idea as well, but there are really only a limited set of circumstances where it is useful. RAII and containers take care of a lot of problems (maybe most of them).

Quote:

Originally Posted by indigo0086

stares in awe at "god functions" 100+ lines long

I still have not recovered from that 900+ line function in C++ that a pair of team mates wrote together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpjust

Exactly! I'd like a platform independent C++ with the huge library of Java. We could call it "C?" ;)

Good thing we don't have a thread "What's up with C++ programmers?" in the C forum ;) Someone might really find where all those knives and clubs are ("Java is defanged C++, without the sticks, knives, and clubs"). Love weaponry metaphors. Silliness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

Good thing we don't have a thread "What's up with C++ programmers?" in the C forum ;) Someone might really find where all those knives and clubs are ("Java is defanged C++, without the sticks, knives, and clubs"). Love weaponry metaphors. Silliness.

Yeah, then they could have a "What's up with C programmers?" in an Assembly forum. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

I still have not recovered from that 900+ line function in C++ that a pair of team mates wrote together.

I'm rewriting a piece of software because I couldn't cope with the 6000+ line function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CornedBee

I'm rewriting a piece of software because I couldn't cope with the 6000+ line function.

How unfortunate. I managed to pursuade the third member of that sub-team to do a rewrite for the other two members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CornedBee

I'm rewriting a piece of software because I couldn't cope with the 6000+ line function.

I've seen the same and many other horror stories. There are simply too many programmers in the world. I hope the range of skills isn't the same in other fields. I'd hate to think there are airline pilots or surgeons of the same relative quality.

> There are simply too many programmers in the world.
Not sure about too many programmers. Perhaps there are too many "programmers" and not enough programmers :)

In this case, it was a radio technology engineer who programmed because nobody else understood the subject matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpjust

Yeah, then they could have a "What's up with C programmers?" in an Assembly forum. :D

Not that I support emacs, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CornedBee

I'm rewriting a piece of software because I couldn't cope with the 6000+ line function.

Christ. I get annoyed when there's >1000 lines in a file... much (much) less a function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

Something I've noticed from asking questions on the JDN forums is just how clueless these people are. Of the 50+ responses to posts there, except for maybe 3 or so, I've gotton nothing but non-sequitars, head-scratching, and confused expressions. This isn't limited to the junior members, either - even the veterans there are apt to respond with things like "why would you want to do such a thing?" and the like. And if it doesn't come in a can (ie: some Java package) then your chances of getting a meaningful reply dwindle to mostly zero.

Has C++ just made us better programmers - more inquisitive, pushing our minds to the limits, always searching for better insight, while Java programmers brains turn to jell-o due to non-exposure to the 'low-level details'? Pure speculation. But what I do know is that I'd probably get better Java advice on CBoard!

I'll program in whatever language fits the job. But it turns out a lot of big companies love java.
I use to bad mouth java before I even used it simply because I was young and dumb and didn't even realize all the power java had to offer. But once I was forced to use it at work I really enjoyed having a library to do every little thing I can think of for me, why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to? If their library or data structure didn't fit my needs exactly I could simply EXTEND IT and MAKE IT BETTER! How exciting is that? Oh wait so your saying my code can run on Windows, *nix, and even z/OS? Sounds neat to me!

If they are willing to pay me $75,000 straight out of college to program in java, so be it . . . on the other hand if they want me to program in C or C++ that’s fine with me as well. But I guess the bonus of where I work is I can pick what project I want to work on and if it’s not low level it’s going to be java, not C++ from what I've been seeing . If its more low level it’s going to be C or ASM. If its some other language I'll learn that and use it to get the job done.

To really show you how prominent Java is (even when speed matters) I worked for IBM for a year in their Tivoli division (in RTP where you work) and they said they are trying to phase out using C++ and have been for awhile, its either Java, C, or ASM. They even use Java on the mainframes. A huge thing right now is converting a ton of old C++ programs to Java at IBM. All their massive products lines in rational are programmed in Java on the eclipse framework, as well as websphere to name a few. Obviously people out there find java a very powerful language or there would be no demand for it. Look at C#, what language does that remind you of? Kind of looks like they were taking a few neat features from the java language. I also realize java took some neat features from other languages before it as well.

This thread reminded me of another post in a scheme/lisp forum. He posted about how superior he felt they were (the scheme/lisp programmers) because they code in a functional language unlike those silly C/C++ programmers.

But I guess if you have a power trip talking about your supremacy over someone else based on what language they code in ... you may want to take a step back and think about how ridiculous that sounds. I need to start a thread "What is up with programmers and their absurd power trips?" I guess everyone has their hobbies?

Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could? or as you said people were confused on why you would do such a thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_coffee

Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could?

Speed.
Inline assembly code.

> Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could?
Women.

Boom Tish.

>> But I guess if you have a power trip talking about your supremacy over someone else based on what language they code in

I had hoped that I made it clear (later in the thread, at least) that I was just joking about the inferiority of Java programmers.

>> But once I was forced to use it at work I really enjoyed having a library to do every little thing I can think of for me, why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to?

The same could be said of C++, actually. There are thousands of free software libraries out there that can do everything that Java can do.

>> If their library or data structure didn't fit my needs exactly I could simply EXTEND IT and MAKE IT BETTER!

Sure, as long as you can squeeze it into a single-inheritance scheme. ;)

>> Oh wait so your saying my code can run on Windows, *nix, and even z/OS? Sounds neat to me!

And C++ doesn't?

>> (even when speed matters)

Unless you're talking about *compiled* bytecode then that's just not true. Besides being interpreted, Java uses stack-based manipulation of operands, which is, by definition, slower than register-based execution.

>> Look at C#, what language does that remind you of? Kind of looks like they were taking a few neat features from the java language. I also realize java took some neat features from other languages before it as well.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I see nothing revolutionary about the "features" of the Java language. Toothless and clumsy, more appropriately.

>> Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could? or as you said people were confused on why you would do such a thing?

I'm currently working on a project that requires some Java coding, and I was seeking strictly Java-related advice on that particular forum. What I was actually commenting about was the clueless responses I was getting from the members there. Incidentally, seeking help elsewhere, I was able to locate much better advice, so I suppose it was just a "bad bunch" of posters making my life miserable (and thus fueling the apparent stereotype).

>> I use to bad mouth java before I even used it simply because I was young and dumb and didn't even realize all the power java had to offer.

To be sure, Java certainly does have it's uses, and it's overall vision of interoperability is quite admirable. In that respect, I would even go as far as to say that it has fundamentally changed the face of software development. Still, the language itself is rather limited, and could have been much better, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

To be sure, Java certainly does have it's uses, and it's overall vision of interoperability is quite admirable. In that respect, I would even go as far as to say that it has fundamentally changed the face of software development. Still, the language itself is rather limited, and could have been much better, IMO.

Java was originally intended to be a full implimentation of C/C++ that could execute in a VM so as to protect the local machine from potentially malicious code. It never got that far of course. It turns out that a fully interpreted C/C++ machine was extremely slow on the hardware of the day (mid 90's 286-486/early pentiums) so the language never fully realized that goal. A lot of the tradeof's to get it to execute at decent speed have become inherent weaknesses in the language. Unfortunately there is so much code out there for java that it probably wont ever die, and as long as there is a VM language available that is more fully developed any new fledgling effort to build a true VM version of C/C++ will probably not receive any notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zacs7

> Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could?
Women.

Boom Tish.

haha, nicely done.

I apologize I didn't read later that you were just joking about it.

Quote:

>> Oh wait so your saying my code can run on Windows, *nix, and even z/OS? Sounds neat to me!

And C++ doesn't?

You were able to write one version of the C/C++ program and have it run on windows, *nix, and z/os?

Quote:

Java was originally intended to be a full implimentation of C/C++ that could execute in a VM so as to protect the local machine from potentially malicious code.

I don't know where you dig up all your stories.

I have some idea, though ...

>> You were able to write one version of the C/C++ program and have it run on windows, *nix, and z/os?

Not the binary, of course, but certainly the source code (neglecting, of course, inline assembly and whatnot).

>> I don't know where you dig up all your stories. I have some idea, though ...

Care to let us in on your hunch? :p

Wow CornedBee, I remember you when I was like 14 on VBForums that was like 10 years ago

Quote:

A lot of the tradeof's to get it to execute at decent speed have become inherent weaknesses in the language.

Can you explain some of these?

Either way, there's a bunch of cruft in Java these days to retain backwards compatibility - these days if I write for the JVM, I would really look at clojure as much as possible. The JVM is only getting faster too (which is nice,) I hope the new garbage collector they've developed pays off (see Garbage First Garbage Collection if you're into that kind of thing.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CornedBee

I don't know where you dig up all your stories.

I have some idea, though ...

Memory, I was around in those days and had some discussions on usenet with some of the guys at Sun regarding java (long before usenet turned to complete crap).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_guy

Can you explain some of these?

e.g. stack based variable handling, which on a modern machine makes it run slower, was faster back then because RAM was more constrained, so implimenting the equivelant of a paging system for the VM was thrown out, because the paging routines themselves consumed processor cycles. While this could be fixed with a rewrite of the VM, that isnt likely to happen, and it may break existing code that depends on such behaviors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zacs7

> Also out of curiosity ... what was the problem that Java couldn't do but C++ could?
Women.

Boom Tish.

LOL! Pwnage! xD

Can I just say, with regards to programming forums, this is probably the best I've ever visited. Mind you the quality of some forums is just atrocious. The worst ones in my opinion are the ones where NOBODY uses code tags even though they're available. I've even posted a question on such a forum asking why nobody uses them and gotten zero replies, like the question just went right over their heads.

The reason why I stick around here is because the level of knowledge seems to be much higher than on other forums and I learn so much just by reading a few threads every day.

When I'm programming in Java I miss C++ (templates instead of generics, pointers, etc). When I'm programming in C++ I miss Java (mostly the RTTI stuff, sometimes the libraries). Sometimes when I'm programming in C++ I miss Perl (regular expressions, easy-to-use lists and hashes).

I'm sure the same thing happens to other people.

I think knowing a lot of programming languages can only be a good thing. If you find yourself missing features in some language too much, maybe you should switch to that language. :)

And CBoard's great. I have no doubt I would be a much worse programmer if I'd never been to CBoard. :)

Quote:

Sometimes when I'm programming in C++ I miss Perl

I hear they have support groups for masochism. Perl brings nothing but pain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bithub

I hear they have support groups for masochism. Perl brings nothing but pain.

To know her is to love her.

Quote:

Perl brings nothing but pain.

I don't write large programs in Perl, but it's great for twisting and mutating text in strange ways. :P

When I see Perl, I want to hurl.
Sure, it can do some cool things, but god damn! Did they have to make it so ugly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwks

I don't write large programs in Perl, but it's great for twisting and mutating text in strange ways. :P

Shhh. I had to sneak this over from perlmonks. It is the number one post of all time there, by some NASA guy ("eyespoplikeamosquito") celebrating the launch of a Saturn rocket:

Code:

#!/usr/bin/perl ;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; +$I=sub{+s+^+ ;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; $"x$_[1]+gem;$/x$_# ;;;; ;;;;;;;; [0].$_.$/};$W=sub{$~=!q~ ;;;;;;; ~.pop();system($^O=~Win?ClS:# ;;;;;;; 'clear'),print,select$Z,$Z,$Z,!" ;;;;;; "||$~for@_};$H=sub{+join$/,map($_# ;;;;;; x$_[0],pop=~m-.+-g),!_};$_=!Mima,s-- ;;;;; "@{['=9+)w'^RINGS]}\%;local@{[Saturn^# ;;;;; wNXIBP]}"-see;s-^#!..+?$/(?=$"+;)--is ;;;; y-;-'-;s-\w-~-gi;$S=$_;#--Beautiful] ;;;; @S=m-.+-g;$N=1+.6-!th_,$--=-82-$--- ;;; $_.=$"x-(y---c-$-)for@S;$R=sub{$i# ;;; -d =0;join$/,map{$j=$%;join!_,grep# ;;; Rhea !($j++%$_[$%]),m-.-g}grep!($i# ;;; -Titan ++%$_[0]),@S};$L=join!_,map# ;;; -Huygens ~~reverse.$/,@S;@R=(&$I(q- ;;; -&&20,051, $_=_^q-q-),&$I(20,41-!q- ;;; -,$_=F|K),$ I->(15,31,$_=&$R(4-!q- ;;; -)),&$I(13-!" ;;",28,$_=&$R(3)),&${ ;;; _^_^I}(10,20-!" ;;;;;",$_=$R->(2)),q- ;;; -&&$S);@O=map&{" ;;;;;; "&&$H}($_,&${ ;;; R.!-_}($_))x$_,!" ;;;;; "+2..2*~~2 ;;; @Y=reverse@R#Dione ;;;;;; &${m-- ;;; S|A|T|U}(@R,$N)||!q- ;;;;;;; b- ;;; &$W(@O[0,1,2,1,0!=!q- ;;;;;;; ;;;; -],!1!~~1);&$W($S.!q- ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;; -,$L,0.16)for$%..5+!q- ;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; Cassini-;&{$W||q- ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; -}(@Y,1.6) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;

If you know any perl at all, this will be the most insane thing you have ever seen. I almost lost my mind and jumped out the window. Just run it in a terminal if you have a *nix perl installation. It takes about 30 seconds....I *promise* nothing bad will happen.....even if you don't know perl, it is quite funny to watch.

:) :) :)

ps. cpjust is a loser xP. SHHHH

Wow, that's amazing! :o I'm always amazed at what people can do with obfuscated code. (I had kind of hoped that each successive frame was Perl code to generate the next one, but that would have been beyond impossible I suppose. It's impossible enough!)

I wouldn't put that down to Perl alone, though. I saw a C program once which calculated PI (without the benefit of math.h), and the text of the code was a circle. :)

Since we're alternatively bashing and uplifting Java and Perl here, anyone else have any other favourite/hated languages? Haskell, Lisp, assembly, HTML? :D

That's insane! :O