From: stef <na@...>
Date: 2006-11-20T07:20:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs Java vs c++

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:54:04 -0500, Mark Shroyer wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:38:21 +0000, Phlip wrote:
> 
>> Java is hostile to both the CPU and the programmer. Hence, the user
>> suffers too.
> 
> Being reasonably experienced in developing both C++ and Java applications,
> I would suggest that a modern JVM is not slow by any means:
> 
> http://www.kano.net/javabench/data
> 
>> You will never miss anything (except lots of entry-level jobs that
>> nobody should want) if you avoid Java like the plague, and stick with
>> languages that are technically superior. Put another way, the simple
>> motivation of having a boss order you to use Java is not good enough.
>> The motivation itself will not magically make Java more productive. It
>> will slow you down. Some people work by the hour, so that's okay for
>> them. If you want to be rewarded for productivity, go with the most
>> technically advanced system you can.
> 
> Ruby is great; I clearly wouldn't be on this newsgroup if I thought
> otherwise. However, at this point in time Java is far more mature,
> performs better, and enjoys a much greater market penetration than Ruby,
> meaning that your Java skills, should you choose to develop them, could
> prove the more useful.
> 
> I agree with Philip in that you should "learn to learn languages"; that's
> the advice of a seasoned software engineer. But what I would add to that
> is that since Java borrows so much from C++ (and is borrowed even more
> heavily from in C#), learning to "think in Java" is an especially good
> starting point from which to proceed to other languages. That might be
> something worth keeping in mind, especially if you think that you might do
> work on .NET some day.
> 
> There certainly are flaws in Java, particularly in the language itself.
> Many tasks must be approached with an unnecessary verbosity of code:
> launching a new thread, for example, requires more writing than it should.
> I get the feeling that Gosling et. al. originally intended this very
> explicit syntax in order to make the exact behavior of the code more
> apparent to the programmer (a decision which may have contributed to
> Java's popularity in academic circles). However, when comparing Java to
> its extremely similar - yet more concise - counterpart, C#, it is clear
> which approach is more appropriate from the standpoint of a pragmatic
> software developer. Java began to add some much-needed syntactic sugar in
> Java 5, and I would expect to see further improvements in this area in
> upcoming relases.
> 
> All things considered, the Java environment (and the vast ecosystem that
> has grown up around it) is quite powerful. Coupled with the close
> ideological relationship that the Java language shares with other popular
> programming languages, I would think this makes Java very much worth your
> consideration.
> 
> Good luck,
> Mark
>

u make a good case. tx.