Java sucks, Perl Rules.

[atbusbook]

in java to set a variable to a string mutable requires using the string
bulder class. but in perl you can just do this
$a = "hello";

in java to print that string you have to do this

System.out.println(a);

but in perl you just do this

print $a;

java is a staticly typed single pardigram languige thats why it sucks

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

in java to set a variable to a string mutable requires using the
string bulder class.

When will trolls learn how to spell?

java is a staticly typed single pardigram languige thats why it sucks

Ditto.

Please don't feed the troll.

Sinan

 

[it_says_BALLS_on_your forehead]

in java to set a variable to a string mutable requires using the string
bulder class. but in perl you can just do this
$a = "hello";

in java to print that string you have to do this

System.out.println(a);

but in perl you just do this

print $a;

java is a staticly typed single pardigram languige thats why it sucks

i'll have to direct my manager to this post .

 

[atbusbook]

You nead a 100 meg IDE because the languige is so bad that you nead
code completion and code check because of a crummy languge

 

[Hal Rosser]

You nead a 100 meg IDE because the languige is so bad that you nead
code completion and code check because of a crummy languge

you must have java mixed up with VB.net
we (can) use dos edit to write code, compile, and run java programs.

Anyway, we were all wondering what you thought about java, and by george,
you were nice enough to post your opinion. Don't forget to tell the other
99,000+- newsgroups as well, and let us know when you have written an office
suite in Perl (like OpenOffice.org has in Java). Have fun in your adventures
in perl.

 

[Daniel Dyer]

Anyway, we were all wondering what you thought about java, and by george,
you were nice enough to post your opinion. Don't forget to tell the other
99,000+- newsgroups as well, and let us know when you have written an
office
suite in Perl (like OpenOffice.org has in Java). Have fun in your
adventures
in perl.

Er, your point is sound but your example's not. The majority of
OpenOffice.org is written in C++. It is possible to write add-ons in
Java, Python and one or two other languages though.

Dan.

 

[Hal Rosser]

Er, your point is sound but your example's not. The majority of
OpenOffice.org is written in C++. It is possible to write add-ons in
Java, Python and one or two other languages though.

Dan.

oops - my bad. I thought open office.org was written in Java since it
originated at Sun.
Yeah I almost tried Jython to check it out.
OTOH perl is a great language, I especially like its treatment of Regular
expressions and the way you can throw a variable into a double-quoted
string. But its not made for the larger projects.

 

[Jürgen Exner]

in java to set a variable to a string mutable requires using the
string bulder class. but in perl you can just do this
$a = "hello";

$a has a special meaning in sort(), therefore it is poor practice to use is
as a generic variable.
You may want to pick a different name.

jue

 

[Daniel Dyer]

oops - my bad. I thought open office.org was written in Java since it
originated at Sun.

Open Office has its roots in StarOffice, which was originally developed by
the German company Star Division, who were later purchased by Sun. Star
Office still exists as a commercial version of Open Office with some added
features.

Corel produced a Java office suite in the late 90s. It was not a big
success. It would be much more feasible now with the huge strides Java
has made in terms of performance and GUI toolkits, not to mention the much
more capable machines we have these days.

Dan.

 

[Pickleman]

$a has a special meaning in sort(), therefore it is poor practice to use is
as a generic variable.
You may want to pick a different name.

jue

Yeah, that's what $foo was designed for.

 

[opalpa]

There are benefits to String being immutable. You can concat String
instances with a + making new String instances along the way.

As for printing, you can:

final static private void print(String msg) {
System.out.println(msg);
}

and then write:
// assuming s is a String
print(s);

Opalinski
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.geocities.com/opalpaweb/

 

[atbusbook]

i did not know that how about $foo

 

[atbusbook]

why dose java have to be so wordy. it is the opisit of lisp and you
spend more time typeing than thinking

 

[Jürgen Exner]

i did not know that how about $foo

You did not know _what_?
If you had quoted an appropriate context -as has been a proven custom for
two decades- then people might have been able to know what you are talking
about.

jue

 

[opalpa]

Java is not wordy in the sense of having a large syntax tree with many
options. C++ is three times larger (i have not checked this, but read
it in article). Java does use english words instead of single
character indicators. I like that aspect. It makes java code is
readable. I like how often java code is readable and reusable, even if
made by less than mediocre programmers.

Besides there is little difference in the quantity of key presses
someone expert at text editing needs to carry out between the various
languages.

Opalinski
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.geocities.com/opalpaweb/

 

[Patrick May]

Java is not wordy in the sense of having a large syntax tree with
many options. C++ is three times larger (i have not checked this,
but read it in article).

Do you have a cite for this? In my experience, for a given
amount of functionality C++ is somewhat less verbose than Java.

Besides there is little difference in the quantity of key presses
someone expert at text editing needs to carry out between the
various languages.

This is not the case. C++ and Java are probably of the same
order of magnitude in terms of verbosity. This is partly due to the
fact that Java was designed to provide a certain level of comfort to
attract C++ programmers and partly due to their similar static type
systems. Perl and other "scripting" languages can be significantly
less verbose.

The most expressive language I've used is Common Lisp. This is a
factor of both its type system and its macro facility that supports
creation of syntactic abstractions.

Regards,

Patrick

 

[Roedy Green]

why dose java have to be so wordy. it is the opisit of lisp and you
spend more time typeing than thinking

Because it was originally designed to program set-top boxes and the
guys who designed it were primarily interested in the JVM, not the
Java language. They were not application programmers. The mindless
verbosity of Java does not start piling up until you write a gui with
listeners and you have 10 pages of code to display single screen.

The solution is not to maintain such code as ASCII text, but as a tree
structure where you can open and close various nodes to see detail.
much would be done by tick-off boxes rather than code. E.g. select
fonts, colours, borders, icons etc for various components.

the high level "routine" would be the display itself. You would right
click on components to get details about them and their events.

see http://mindprod.com/projects/scid.html

 

[opalpa]

Do you have a cite for this? In my experience, for a given

amount of functionality C++ is somewhat less verbose than Java.

I'm talking about the size of the grammar, the complexity of the
language. I did not locate the article I read previously but found
some other comparisons of java and C++ grammars. This is an extract:

"because development of Java grammar parser is not a simple task (even
through Java grammar is simpler and less ambiguous than C++ grammar)"

from

http://www.ispras.ru/~knizhnik/jlint/ReadMe.htm

I'm sure java's grammar grew in size with the addition of enums,
generics, etc. I wonder which grammer is larger now and by how much.

This is not the case. C++ and Java are probably of the same
order of magnitude in terms of verbosity.

I'm not talking about the resulting source code's verbosity. I'm
talking about the amount of keys (raw count) I need to hit in order to
get a lot of java code characters on screen. I am comparing this
quantity to the amount of keys I need to hit to get, admitadly shorter,
perl code. Being a competant user of editors I frequently end up with
considerably more characters on screen then number of keys hit. I'm
saying that number of characters and verbosity are very minor
considerations when it comes to generating code fast.

Opalinski
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.geocities.com/opalpaweb/

 

[Michael Redlich]

java is a staticly typed single pardigram languige thats why it sucks

Can someone tell me why we are comparing apples to oranges? If the
title of this thread was "Java Sucks, C++ Rules," then I can see having
some kind of intelligent debate.

Otherwise, silly statements such as:

"Java is a statically typed language, therefore it sucks."

are completely stupid IMHO. As Hal pointed out, you wouldn't use Perl
to write the next version of Star Office, Microsoft Office, or Fred's
Office. Perl is simply an excellent tool for extracting information
from files using regular expressions. We all know what can be
developed using Java.

It all boils down to selecting the best language to solve a particular
task.

So let's send this troll packing, and move on to discussing Java
issues.

Go away, troll...

Mike.

--- ACGNJ Java Users Group (http://www.javasig.org/)

 

[Patrick May]

I'm not talking about the resulting source code's verbosity. I'm
talking about the amount of keys (raw count) I need to hit in order
to get a lot of java code characters on screen. I am comparing this
quantity to the amount of keys I need to hit to get, admitadly
shorter, perl code. Being a competant user of editors I frequently
end up with considerably more characters on screen then number of
keys hit. I'm saying that number of characters and verbosity are
very minor considerations when it comes to generating code fast.

You're making my point for me: Java is more verbose. The fact
that you've come up with techniques to avoid some of the negative
consequences of that verbosity indicates just how bad the situation
is. If you spent the same amount of time adjusting your editing style
for Perl, for example, is there any reason why you wouldn't see a
similar reduction in the amount of typing required to deliver similar
functionality?

Regards,

Patrick