Java showed that a much more graceful way of coding can be done at nearly the same (if not better) than the way things had been being done in C or C++.

I agree. The thing like the most about Java is the language itself. It's elegant. That fact that they steered away from multiple inheritance is another plus in my book.

a couple of things that I could never stand about java though is not being able to declare (or override) operators, use pointers, or have data structures that acted like primitives.  One thing that drove me nuts about C++ was having to re-invent the wheel every time you started an application where you couldn't borrow code from other projects you did, that and the gratuitous misuse of macro's by C coders who refused to learn object oriented programming.  Java showed that a much more graceful way of coding can be done at nearly the same (if not better) than the way things had been being done in C or C++.  C# to me is more like a cleaner (albeit watered down) version of C++, which gives you some of the nice things we all liked about java, but put the developer back in control over the total development experience.

That's funny. I was going to mention Azureus as an app that is such a resource hog, it is virtually unusable. The fact that its UI suffers from a bad case of "programmers art" doesn't help. I mean, come on, look at this.

Hmm... I dunno then, Azureus runs as fast as any other torrent application on my xp pro machine, which is 4 years old. I'm not exactly sure why it is so bad for you, oh well. I still prefer java.

There is pascal can generate pure Java application http://www.midletpascal.com/

Unfortunatly java did it first, and better. Java's libraries actually make sense and don't look like they have been organized by a group of retarded monkies. :\, Anything .NET can do java can reproduce faster, and more efficiently. You still cannot find a truely cross-platform JIT for .NET, whether you think mono works or not.

I'd like to see a file pointer to an alternate data stream be created natively and used as though it were a normal file object in java.  not trying to knock it, I started out doing java and still like the language.  IMO without the abstraction layer of the virtual machine .net is going to perform better on a windows machine than a java app because it worked directly with the os.  I do understand that the sdk for a windows and unix os implement the framework differently to take advantage of the specific machine, but I've yet to see that level of support in java

Well swing and swt both use the local operating sytems system calls to render its widgets.

This doesn't look like local operating system widgets to me. Look at the tabs and the status bar. Eclipse suffers from the same oddities.

That's funny. I was going to mention Azureus as an app that is such a resource hog, it is virtually unusable. The fact that its UI suffers from a bad case of "programmers art" doesn't help. I mean, come on, look at this.

I just started it up and for fun with an empty queue (no uploads or download):

MacPro:~ Rickard$ ps -ux | grep Azureus
Rickard  3890   0.1 -2.6   725872  54896  ??  S    11:56AM   0:07.07 /Applications/Azureus.app/Contents/MacOS/JavaApplicationStub -psn_0_65536001
Rickard  3947   0.0 -0.0    18056    292  p1  R+   11:59AM   0:00.00 grep Azureus

The sixth column is RSS (resident set size in kilobytes) which is what we're interested in. 54896 kilobytes for a torrent client? I fired up uTorrent in Parallels just to compare and it consumes only 4450 kilobytes. Now granted, Azureus has more features, but still.

I don't want to start a pissing contest, but I just don't see Java as a feasible client application development platform right now. When someone can trick me into running a Java app for some time without noticing it, maybe I'll change my mind.

but now i must start from zero and must re choose again.

Hey, chin up

I've done it many times, had to re-tool for a new generation of silicone. It gets easier over time, because you don't become an expert at any one thing, you skim the surface so to speak. Learn enough to get by, to do your job, but don't sink too deep or else, you're digging yourself out again.

Mediator wrote:

Unfortunatly java did it first, and better. Java's libraries actually make sense and don't look like they have been organized by a group of retarded monkies. :\, Anything .NET can do java can reproduce faster, and more efficiently. You still cannot find a truely cross-platform JIT for .NET, whether you think mono works or not.

I agree to some degree, but the fact remains, I have yet to encounter a Java application that doesn't feel sluggish or consumes lots and lots of memory. The fact that the UI never really matches the operating system on which it is running doesn't help. Java works fine for server applications, but it's not quite there when it comes to desktop apps.

Well swing and swt both use the local operating sytems system calls to render its widgets. As for slow UI's a lot falls into the hands of the developer (as it is for any language). Take Azureus for example its UI runs at the same pace as any other windows application, because it was developed right

Java supports locals better than .NET does. Swing can easily load arabic language packs.

- My customer like .NET system (Ask them why), because it is the new thing from Microsoft nothing else, so i have plan to make scripts or code for 2 languages (.NET and MONO) and provide it to my customer as .NET application.

Unfortunatly java did it first, and better. Java's libraries actually make sense and don't look like they have been organized by a group of retarded monkies. :\, Anything .NET can do java can reproduce faster, and more efficiently. You still cannot find a truely cross-platform JIT for .NET, whether you think mono works or not.

I agree to some degree, but the fact remains, I have yet to encounter a Java application that doesn't feel sluggish or consumes lots and lots of memory. The fact that the UI never really matches the operating system on which it is running doesn't help. Java works fine for server applications, but it's not quite there when it comes to desktop apps.

because they brought in anders hejlsberg (the creator of Delphi) to create it for them.  .NET is actually something they did right IMO.  using mono you can develop for nix and windows.  If I'm not mistaken, gnome is using mono for their development (I could be wrong about this one though).

.net lets you create language extensions for it so that you can write .net apps in python, C#, vb, C++, perl, fortran, and a ton of other languages.  the cool thing about this is, that it allows you to use the php framework, and .net framework however you wish.

being able to write a file saying:

using ( StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter("foo.txt") ) {
    s.Write("blah");
}

as opposed to:

$fh = fopen("text", "a");
fwrite($fh, "blah");
fclose($fh);

is just one of the ways that they've taken what we've all been doing since the 60's and made it easier to write, override, and manipulate.

Unfortunatly java did it first, and better. Java's libraries actually make sense and don't look like they have been organized by a group of retarded monkies. :\, Anything .NET can do java can reproduce faster, and more efficiently. You still cannot find a truely cross-platform JIT for .NET, whether you think mono works or not.

I can wait, if my age allow me to do that