Why MS JVM?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Raymond DeCampo, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    do people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    plug-in? By using HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated
    that downloads and installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there
    other reasons I am not aware of?

    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Raymond DeCampo

    Mickey Segal Guest

    "Raymond DeCampo" <> wrote in message
    news:BLNBe.43587$...
    > As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    > get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why do
    > people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java plug-in?
    > By using HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated that
    > downloads and installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there other
    > reasons I am not aware of?


    1. The MS JVM runs pure Java 1.1 programs with far better GIU speed than
    the Sun JVM and with better stability.
    2. Some managed computing environments do not allow the users to install a
    different JVM such as that from Sun.
    3. A small number of programmers may be stuck with MS-specific J++ code not
    already ported to pure Java or to .NET.

    When we give do demos using our own computers we always use the MS JVM
    because of #1. When we use other people's computers we often use the MS JVM
    because of #2. We had the sense to avoid ever getting into #3 in the first
    place.
    Mickey Segal, Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Raymond DeCampo

    Leon Guest

    "Mickey Segal" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Raymond DeCampo" <> wrote in message
    > news:BLNBe.43587$...
    >> As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to get
    >> their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why do people
    >> want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java plug-in? By using
    >> HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated that downloads and
    >> installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there other reasons I am not
    >> aware of?

    >
    > 1. The MS JVM runs pure Java 1.1 programs with far better GIU speed than the
    > Sun JVM and with better stability.
    > 2. Some managed computing environments do not allow the users to install a
    > different JVM such as that from Sun.
    > 3. A small number of programmers may be stuck with MS-specific J++ code not
    > already ported to pure Java or to .NET.
    >
    > When we give do demos using our own computers we always use the MS JVM because
    > of #1. When we use other people's computers we often use the MS JVM because
    > of #2. We had the sense to avoid ever getting into #3 in the first place.


    Were you ever confronted with multi platform issues?

    Greetings, Leon.
    Leon, Jul 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:

    > As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    > get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    > do people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    > plug-in?


    Because all your clients would have to use the Sun Java plug-in too.

    Not all of them will have that on their machine, and not all of them
    will have the authority to install third-party sofware on their machine.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >
    >>As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    >>get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    >>do people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    >>plug-in?

    >
    >
    > Because all your clients would have to use the Sun Java plug-in too.
    >
    > Not all of them will have that on their machine, and not all of them
    > will have the authority to install third-party sofware on their machine.


    Given the lack of support for MS Java and the fact that it is not
    present on all versions of Windows (IIRC, there was a window where MS
    did not ship it), wouldn't it make more sense to use another plug-in
    technology for these cases? Presumably Flash is out because it might
    not be installed, what about ActiveX?

    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:

    > Given the lack of support for MS Java and the fact that it is not
    > present on all versions of Windows (IIRC, there was a window where MS
    > did not ship it), wouldn't it make more sense to use another plug-in
    > technology for these cases? Presumably Flash is out because it might
    > not be installed, what about ActiveX?


    Active X is a trust-or-reject technology.

    As such it is not much use on the internet.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 15, 2005
    #6
  7. Raymond DeCampo

    Mickey Segal Guest

    "Leon" <> wrote in message
    news:db8gni$s5d$1.ov.home.nl...
    > Were you ever confronted with multi platform issues?


    Since we kept to pure Java 1.1 our applets can run on both the MS JVM and
    the Sun JVM. The main multi-platform issues have been with the Macintosh
    JVM, as chronicled at www.segal.org/macjavabugs/, but with the release of
    Mac OS 10.4, almost all of those are now fixed.
    Mickey Segal, Jul 15, 2005
    #7
  8. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >
    >>Given the lack of support for MS Java and the fact that it is not
    >>present on all versions of Windows (IIRC, there was a window where MS
    >>did not ship it), wouldn't it make more sense to use another plug-in
    >>technology for these cases? Presumably Flash is out because it might
    >>not be installed, what about ActiveX?

    >
    >
    > Active X is a trust-or-reject technology.
    >
    > As such it is not much use on the internet.


    Hmm, based on your earlier assumption that the users could not install
    applications, I assumed we were talking about a controlled environment,
    like a corporate intranet. On an intranet, it is safer to trust code,
    as it is being served by the Company.

    I suppose you could be concerned about internet cafes and kiosks,
    although, I would imagine that the good ones already have every plug-in
    under the sun installed.

    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    > Tim Tyler wrote:
    > > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:


    > >>Given the lack of support for MS Java and the fact that it is not
    > >>present on all versions of Windows (IIRC, there was a window where MS
    > >>did not ship it), wouldn't it make more sense to use another plug-in
    > >>technology for these cases? Presumably Flash is out because it might
    > >>not be installed, what about ActiveX?

    > >
    > > Active X is a trust-or-reject technology.
    > >
    > > As such it is not much use on the internet.

    >
    > Hmm, based on your earlier assumption that the users could not install
    > applications, I assumed we were talking about a controlled environment,
    > like a corporate intranet. [...]


    *Many* companies offer access to internet services such as Google. Some
    need access for work. Others do so to help hang on to their employees.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >>Tim Tyler wrote:
    >>
    >>>Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:

    >
    >
    >>>>Given the lack of support for MS Java and the fact that it is not
    >>>>present on all versions of Windows (IIRC, there was a window where MS
    >>>>did not ship it), wouldn't it make more sense to use another plug-in
    >>>>technology for these cases? Presumably Flash is out because it might
    >>>>not be installed, what about ActiveX?
    >>>
    >>>Active X is a trust-or-reject technology.
    >>>
    >>>As such it is not much use on the internet.

    >>
    >>Hmm, based on your earlier assumption that the users could not install
    >>applications, I assumed we were talking about a controlled environment,
    >>like a corporate intranet. [...]

    >
    >
    > *Many* companies offer access to internet services such as Google. Some
    > need access for work. Others do so to help hang on to their employees.


    Right. This is not really in contradiction with my assumption you
    quoted. However, the details are not really relevant and are probably
    uninteresting.

    So I am gathering that people are using MS JVM for public websites ,
    presumably for a commercial purpose, where a user that cannot access the
    site represents a lost sale.

    I have a few more questions, if you do not mind. First, I am curious if
    you (or others) have worked on such a project. Second, I am curious as
    to the nature of the applets.

    Thank you,
    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 16, 2005
    #10
  11. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:

    > I have a few more questions, if you do not mind. First, I am curious if
    > you (or others) have worked on such a project. Second, I am curious as
    > to the nature of the applets.


    Many of my programs run under Java 1.1.

    I want to be able to do things like run on embedded devices, and Kaffe -
    and I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon as that
    becomes practical.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 17, 2005
    #11
  12. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >
    >>I have a few more questions, if you do not mind. First, I am curious if
    >>you (or others) have worked on such a project. Second, I am curious as
    >>to the nature of the applets.

    >
    >
    > Many of my programs run under Java 1.1.
    >
    > I want to be able to do things like run on embedded devices, and Kaffe -
    > and I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon as that
    > becomes practical.


    I do not understand how having the code run under Java 1.1 abets the
    goal of migrating the code away from Java as soon as practical.

    Thanks,
    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    > Tim Tyler wrote:


    > > Many of my programs run under Java 1.1.
    > >
    > > I want to be able to do things like run on embedded devices, and Kaffe -
    > > and I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon as that
    > > becomes practical.

    >
    > I do not understand how having the code run under Java 1.1 abets the
    > goal of migrating the code away from Java as soon as practical.


    Look at one of the existing migration paths:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/jump/default.aspx

    No Java 2 support.

    Probably the main problem with supporting Java 2 in this context is
    that there's mountains of copyrighted, proprietary Sun code, which would
    need reverse engineering if one was moving away from Sun. By contrast,
    the Java 1.1 platform is relatively small - and has been mostly
    reverse-engineered already.

    I plan to migrate in two steps: first replacing Java the language - and
    only at a later date replacing the VM - if that proves necessary. I'm
    not /too/ worried about portability while taking the first step - since
    I'm prepared to discard 90% of my existing codebase while making this
    step - but I am concerned about portability while making the second step.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >>Tim Tyler wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>Many of my programs run under Java 1.1.
    >>>
    >>>I want to be able to do things like run on embedded devices, and Kaffe -
    >>>and I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon as that
    >>>becomes practical.

    >>
    >>I do not understand how having the code run under Java 1.1 abets the
    >>goal of migrating the code away from Java as soon as practical.

    >
    >
    > Look at one of the existing migration paths:
    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/jump/default.aspx
    >
    > No Java 2 support.
    >
    > Probably the main problem with supporting Java 2 in this context is
    > that there's mountains of copyrighted, proprietary Sun code, which would
    > need reverse engineering if one was moving away from Sun. By contrast,
    > the Java 1.1 platform is relatively small - and has been mostly
    > reverse-engineered already.
    >
    > I plan to migrate in two steps: first replacing Java the language - and
    > only at a later date replacing the VM - if that proves necessary. I'm
    > not /too/ worried about portability while taking the first step - since
    > I'm prepared to discard 90% of my existing codebase while making this
    > step - but I am concerned about portability while making the second step.


    This leaves me even more puzzled at what you hope to accomplish to be
    honest. Perhaps I should have asked a different question as well. What
    currently makes it impractical for you to move away from Java?

    Also, if you are willing to discard 90% of your codebase, what is it
    that prevents you from discarding that last 10% and doing a
    straightforward conversion?

    Finally, a question concerning .NET that is not really directed
    specifically at you. I thought that one of the benefits of .NET was
    that the runtime is based on the CLR and that it would be possible to
    compile any language into the CLR, Java included. Is this not true, or
    perhaps no-one has attempted it with Java?

    Thanks,
    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    > Tim Tyler wrote:
    > > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    > >>Tim Tyler wrote:


    > >>>[...] I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon
    > >>>as that becomes practical.
    > >>
    > >>I do not understand how having the code run under Java 1.1 abets the
    > >>goal of migrating the code away from Java as soon as practical.

    > >
    > > Look at one of the existing migration paths:
    > >
    > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/jump/default.aspx
    > >
    > > No Java 2 support.
    > >
    > > Probably the main problem with supporting Java 2 in this context is
    > > that there's mountains of copyrighted, proprietary Sun code, which would
    > > need reverse engineering if one was moving away from Sun. By contrast,
    > > the Java 1.1 platform is relatively small - and has been mostly
    > > reverse-engineered already.
    > >
    > > I plan to migrate in two steps: first replacing Java the language - and
    > > only at a later date replacing the VM - if that proves necessary. I'm
    > > not /too/ worried about portability while taking the first step - since
    > > I'm prepared to discard 90% of my existing codebase while making this
    > > step - but I am concerned about portability while making the second step.

    >
    > This leaves me even more puzzled at what you hope to accomplish to be
    > honest.


    No more dreadful Java source code - of course! I'm sick of Java's static,
    primitive and class bits, and it's huge complexity - and don't see why I
    should suffer from its range of C++ hangovers a moment longer. The Java
    language was well out of date at its launch in 1995 - and hasn't improved
    much with time.

    > Perhaps I should have asked a different question as well. What
    > currently makes it impractical for you to move away from Java?


    The target language doesn't exist yet.

    > Also, if you are willing to discard 90% of your codebase, what is it
    > that prevents you from discarding that last 10% and doing a
    > straightforward conversion?


    That's a possibility. I would /like/ to be able to port code across
    between the environments though - so the environment retains a link
    to the existing pool of Java source code. I figure the chances of
    losing code in the transfer are reduced if I don't build in
    dependencies to loads of complex, proprietary Sun code.

    > Finally, a question concerning .NET that is not really directed
    > specifically at you. I thought that one of the benefits of .NET was
    > that the runtime is based on the CLR and that it would be possible to
    > compile any language into the CLR, Java included. Is this not true, or
    > perhaps no-one has attempted it with Java?


    There's http://www.ikvm.net/

    No use to me - step one for me is replacing the Java language.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 18, 2005
    #15
  16. On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:13:21 GMT, Raymond DeCampo wrote:

    > As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    > get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    > do people want this?


    I'll give an answer somewhat different from that of
    either Mickey or Tim..

    Take this applet as a 'for instance'..

    <sscce>
    public class HelloWorldApplet
    extends java.applet.Applet {

    public void init() {
    add( new java.awt.Label("Hello World!") );
    }
    }
    </sscce>

    You would expect (hope) that this applet works just fine
    in 1.1 - it uses nothing that was not available in 1.1.

    One of the few practical ways for most people to *test* that
    is to point one of the (dwindling number of) Internet Explorer
    browsers armed with the MSVM. It is true that you can still
    get versions of NN 4.78 with Symantec's Java 1.1.5, but the
    MSVM is even earlier, at 1.1.4.

    So the MSVM is the one of the best ways to test *1.1* compatibility,

    1) I argue the question is in part, not 'making applets for the MSVM'
    so much as 'making applets compatible with 1.1'.

    Now consider this source..
    <sscce>
    import java.awt.*;

    public class ImageApplet
    extends java.applet.Applet {

    Image image;

    public void init() {
    java.net.URL imageURL =
    this.getClass().getResource("bird.gif");
    image = getImage(imageURL);

    // do lots of calculations
    // and component initialisation..
    }

    public void paint(Graphics g) {
    g.drawImage(image,0,0,null);
    }
    }
    </sscce>

    Should *this* code work in 1.1?

    Yes and no. It is fragile for the fact that the image
    may not be loaded by the time of the first 'paint'.

    I was dealing with an applet that worked in every VM
    this side of the MSVM (including the NN Symantec 1.1.5 VM),
    yet broke in the MSVM because the MSVM was able to get
    through the initialisation faster than the image took to load.

    So - again there are good reason for testing applets in
    the MSVM specifically - there are some things it does
    better, and faster than any other VM that I know of.

    >..If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    > plug-in?


    As both Tim and Mickey have touched on, if it is a
    business critical applet, the tendency is to make
    it compatible with as many comers as possible, which
    leans heavily towards 1.1/AWT.

    >..By using HTMLConverter


    AaaaaAAAAArrgh! That /abomination/?!?

    Only recently have Sun themselves seen the idiocy of
    the 'All browsers' template for the HTMLConverter
    that was churning out hundreds (thousands) of web
    pages using Sun's own incredibly poor excuse for
    Javascript (Browser sniffing JS - the worst kind).

    Now they recommend the template that simply writes
    that same text as HTML directly into the page, and
    triggers HTML validation errors because of the use
    of the non W3C <EMBED> structure.

    >..or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated
    > that downloads and installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there
    > other reasons I am not aware of?


    Java major versioning can be done for applets
    using the JavaVersionApplet[1] more complex
    deployment and versioning can be done with
    JWS (for which the <applet> element does just fine).

    [1] <http://www.physci.org/codes/jre.jsp>

    Having said all that, I should add that
    - My perception is skewed because I write so many
    applets that *must* work with 1.1 to be of use
    (mostly support applets for other applets)
    - My perception is further skewed because I deal with
    so many people new to Java, and developing applets, who
    have yet to start using Swing.
    - I feel that the number of people actually using 1.1,
    who are willing to part with cash over the internet,
    is miniscule, and that it is no longer worth jumping
    through hoops to accomodate those who will not, or
    cannot update.

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info
    Beats A Hard Kick In The Face
    Andrew Thompson, Jul 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Tim Tyler wrote:
    > Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >
    >>Tim Tyler wrote:
    >>
    >>>Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:
    >>>
    >>>>Tim Tyler wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>>>[...] I want to be able to migrate my code away from Java - as soon
    >>>>>as that becomes practical.
    >>>>
    >>>>I do not understand how having the code run under Java 1.1 abets the
    >>>>goal of migrating the code away from Java as soon as practical.
    >>>
    >>>Look at one of the existing migration paths:
    >>>
    >>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/jump/default.aspx
    >>>
    >>>No Java 2 support.
    >>>
    >>>Probably the main problem with supporting Java 2 in this context is
    >>>that there's mountains of copyrighted, proprietary Sun code, which would
    >>>need reverse engineering if one was moving away from Sun. By contrast,
    >>>the Java 1.1 platform is relatively small - and has been mostly
    >>>reverse-engineered already.
    >>>
    >>>I plan to migrate in two steps: first replacing Java the language - and
    >>>only at a later date replacing the VM - if that proves necessary. I'm
    >>>not /too/ worried about portability while taking the first step - since
    >>>I'm prepared to discard 90% of my existing codebase while making this
    >>>step - but I am concerned about portability while making the second step.

    >>
    >>This leaves me even more puzzled at what you hope to accomplish to be
    >>honest.

    >
    >
    > No more dreadful Java source code - of course! I'm sick of Java's static,
    > primitive and class bits, and it's huge complexity - and don't see why I
    > should suffer from its range of C++ hangovers a moment longer. The Java
    > language was well out of date at its launch in 1995 - and hasn't improved
    > much with time.
    >
    >
    >>Perhaps I should have asked a different question as well. What
    >>currently makes it impractical for you to move away from Java?

    >
    >
    > The target language doesn't exist yet.
    >
    >
    >>Also, if you are willing to discard 90% of your codebase, what is it
    >>that prevents you from discarding that last 10% and doing a
    >>straightforward conversion?

    >
    >
    > That's a possibility. I would /like/ to be able to port code across
    > between the environments though - so the environment retains a link
    > to the existing pool of Java source code. I figure the chances of
    > losing code in the transfer are reduced if I don't build in
    > dependencies to loads of complex, proprietary Sun code.
    >
    >
    >>Finally, a question concerning .NET that is not really directed
    >>specifically at you. I thought that one of the benefits of .NET was
    >>that the runtime is based on the CLR and that it would be possible to
    >>compile any language into the CLR, Java included. Is this not true, or
    >>perhaps no-one has attempted it with Java?

    >
    >
    > There's http://www.ikvm.net/
    >
    > No use to me - step one for me is replacing the Java language.


    OK, I think I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for your
    patience in explaining it to me.

    At the risk of veering completely off-topic, what features are you
    looking for in the new language?

    Thanks,
    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Raymond DeCampo

    Joan Guest

    "Raymond DeCampo" <> wrote in message
    news:BLNBe.43587$...
    > As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    > get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    > do people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    > plug-in? By using HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated
    > that downloads and installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there
    > other reasons I am not aware of?


    Maybe this has come up before (and I'm to lazy to check), but I think there
    are a lot of young people
    (elementary school, middle school) that have access to a computer but don't
    know too much about how to set up anything if it doesn't come already
    pre-loaded when their parents or school buys the computer. Dell seems
    to be popular because it runs out of the box and it's cheap. Sun java didn't
    come pre-loaded when I got mine though.
    Joan, Jul 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Joan wrote:
    > "Raymond DeCampo" <> wrote in message
    > news:BLNBe.43587$...
    >
    >>As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still people posting asking how to
    >>get their Java programs compiled to work on MS JVM. My question is why
    >>do people want this? If it is for applets, why not use the Sun java
    >>plug-in? By using HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, HTML code is generated
    >>that downloads and installs the plug-in if it does not exist. Are there
    >>other reasons I am not aware of?

    >
    >
    > Maybe this has come up before (and I'm to lazy to check), but I think there
    > are a lot of young people
    > (elementary school, middle school) that have access to a computer but don't
    > know too much about how to set up anything if it doesn't come already
    > pre-loaded when their parents or school buys the computer. Dell seems
    > to be popular because it runs out of the box and it's cheap. Sun java didn't
    > come pre-loaded when I got mine though.
    >
    >


    I think the problem there is trying to convince the kiddies not to
    install everything they come across, rather than the opposite. When
    using the code from HTMLConverter or <jsp:plugin>, the user is walked
    through a pretty easy install of the plug-in.

    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
    Raymond DeCampo, Jul 18, 2005
    #19
  20. Raymond DeCampo

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Raymond DeCampo <> wrote or quoted:

    > At the risk of veering completely off-topic, what features are you
    > looking for in the new language?


    Very short short-list:

    In the public domain;
    Can run on top of the JVM;
    Simple, small and easy to learn;
    Prototype based - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_based
    Message based - with support for sending every message asynchronously;
    Contracts - implemented using assertions;
    Full closures - i.e. every block of code is an object;
    Flexible messages - i.e. comma separated lists and keyword arguments;
    Straight-forwards syntax - more like Python than Ruby, Smalltalk or Io;

    I want a language that's /very/ dynamic - but with the
    possibility of enforcing a more static approach when
    that's appropriate using contracts.

    Java's pretty hopeless for debugging, scripting and RAD.

    I want a language that is /much/ better in those areas -
    but can still be used to write library code and secure code
    where every aspect of the interface is pinned down in
    considerable detail.

    Traditionally contracts have been used with rather static
    languages. However, dynamic languages and contracts seems
    like a no-brainer to me - contracts make up for one of the
    deficiencies of dynamic languages *far* better than the
    introduction of compulsory type checking does.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Jul 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin Hooke

    Re: Handling both MS JVM and Sun JVM

    Kevin Hooke, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    865
  2. Lasse
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    683
    Jon A. Cruz
    Jan 5, 2004
  3. Young-Jin Lee

    MS JVM and Sun JVM problem

    Young-Jin Lee, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    564
    Mickey Segal
    Jan 21, 2004
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    862
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  5. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,762
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page