The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Weblogs Forum
What Are Your Java Pain Points, Really?

264 replies on 18 pages. Most recent reply: Jan 17, 2008 10:07 AM by GJ sonke

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 264 replies on 18 pages [ « | 1 ... 15 16 17 18 ]
Paul Beckford

Posts: 51
Nickname: phaedrus
Registered: Feb, 2007

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 8, 2007 9:52 AM
Reply to this message Reply
Advertisement
> > re: Lisp in general
> >
> > I don't think I would use Lisp for a new production
> > system. I think it's (I'm refering to Common Lisp)
> > standard library is both antiquated and polluted with
> > stuff tossed in to unify the multitude of Lisp variants
> > that exist. Also, a lot of Lisp code feels almost as
> > low-level as C. Instead of twiddling bits you twiddle
> > cons cells.
>
> Thanks for elaborating. I can see the value in these
> features (still not sure about macros) and I am wondering,
> what contemporary language that incorporates these
> features fully? (assuming there are some.)
Hi James,

I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on Lisp. Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!

PS. Macros are a lot more than "an optimistation technique", and Lisp <b>is</b> a contemporary langauge and is likely to still be around long after Java :^)

Lisp deals with fundamentals - Think "String Theory" for Software Engineers.

May the force be with you...

Paul.

Gregg Wonderly

Posts: 317
Nickname: greggwon
Registered: Apr, 2003

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 8, 2007 10:26 AM
Reply to this message Reply
> I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on Lisp.
> Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!
>
> PS. Macros are a lot more than "an optimistation
> technique", and Lisp <b>is</b> a contemporary langauge and
> is likely to still be around long after Java :^)
>
> Lisp deals with fundamentals - Think "String Theory" for
> Software Engineers.

One of the most recent developments in the Java language has been the Java Memory specification changes which have solidified the behavior of a number of concurrency related problematic areas.

I don't want to go into the good or bad of the specific solutions, but I'd like to know peoples views of these areas of java as pain points.

I'd also like to hear how others have experience concurrency issues or non-issues in other languages. I am familar with the theory and practices associated with immutable data as a simple solution so that changes are never visible to any thread except the one that created the change and any context that changed value (which is now immutable) is passed into.

Are there other non-data related concurrency experiences?

Erik Engbrecht

Posts: 210
Nickname: eengbrec
Registered: Apr, 2006

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 8, 2007 12:08 PM
Reply to this message Reply
>I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on Lisp. Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!

When did I say Lisp wasn't worth learning?

>PS. Macros are a lot more than "an optimistation technique",

Macros enable you to compile in-language DSLs at compile time rather than interpretting them or transforming to code then compiling them an runtime using "eval." This is an optimization technique, albeit a very important one for idiomatic Lisp.

>and Lisp <b>is</b> a contemporary langauge and is likely to still be around long after Java :^)

While I agree Lisp is still very much alive and well today, and that it will probably outlive Java, I disagree with labelling it a contemporary language. It's standard library is not only a mess, it is also missing many, many things that would be expected in a modern language.

>Lisp deals with fundamentals - Think "String Theory" for Software Engineers.

Lisp is better than String Theory. String Theory has a good chance of being shot down. Lisp (the language, not the library) is in IMHO what a language *should be*.

James Watson

Posts: 2024
Nickname: watson
Registered: Sep, 2005

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 8, 2007 3:33 PM
Reply to this message Reply
> > Thanks for elaborating. I can see the value in these
> > features (still not sure about macros) and I am
> wondering,
> > what contemporary language that incorporates these
> > features fully? (assuming there are some.)
> Hi James,
>
> I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on Lisp.
> Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!

I don't take anyone's word as the 'last word' including my own word.

The problem isn't that it's taking too much effort, it's that the book is so slow. I mean it's like reading an introductory text on programming. I understand the basics of functional approaches (but not much more than the basics) and I want to get to som new information.

This is not to say the book is bad. It's my personal problem. All through school I would lose focus on the lecture or class because it was too basic and not challenging. Then I would miss the point when things got interesting and be lost. I'm not a top-down learner either. I'm better off just getting thrown into something than wandering around the perimeter.

Paul Beckford

Posts: 51
Nickname: phaedrus
Registered: Feb, 2007

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 9, 2007 4:24 AM
Reply to this message Reply
> > > Thanks for elaborating. I can see the value in these
> > > features (still not sure about macros) and I am
> > wondering,
> > > what contemporary language that incorporates these
> > > features fully? (assuming there are some.)
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on
> Lisp.
> > Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!
>
> I don't take anyone's word as the 'last word' including my
> own word.
>
> The problem isn't that it's taking too much effort, it's
> that the book is so slow. I mean it's like reading an
> introductory text on programming. I understand the basics
> of functional approaches (but not much more than the
> basics) and I want to get to som new information.
>
> This is not to say the book is bad. It's my personal
> problem. All through school I would lose focus on the
> lecture or class because it was too basic and not
> challenging. Then I would miss the point when things got
> interesting and be lost. I'm not a top-down learner
> either. I'm better off just getting thrown into something
> than wandering around the perimeter.
I'm the same in some ways. What I did was downloaded Lisp In a Box and got busy coding. When you get stuck you can always refer back to the book.

Just an idea.

Paul.

Paul Beckford

Posts: 51
Nickname: phaedrus
Registered: Feb, 2007

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 9, 2007 5:02 AM
Reply to this message Reply
> >I wouldn't take Eric's words as "the last word" on Lisp.
> Anything worth knowing requires effort. So persevere!
>
> When did I say Lisp wasn't worth learning?
>
> >PS. Macros are a lot more than "an optimistation
> technique",
>
> Macros enable you to compile in-language DSLs at compile
> time rather than interpretting them or transforming to
> code then compiling them an runtime using "eval." This is
> an optimization technique, albeit a very important one for
> idiomatic Lisp.
>
> >and Lisp <b>is</b> a contemporary langauge and is likely
> to still be around long after Java :^)
>
> While I agree Lisp is still very much alive and well
> today, and that it will probably outlive Java, I disagree
> with labelling it a contemporary language. It's standard
> library is not only a mess, it is also missing many, many
> things that would be expected in a modern language.
>
> >Lisp deals with fundamentals - Think "String Theory" for
> Software Engineers.
>
> Lisp is better than String Theory. String Theory has a
> good chance of being shot down. Lisp (the language, not
> the library) is in IMHO what a language *should be*.

Hi Eric,

I'm not really qualified to say, as I am still learning Lisp myself, but there are advanced Lisp libraries out there, albeit, the "standard" library is nothing like we have come to expect compared to a language like Java or C#.

For example if you are doing advanced 3D modelling using AutoCAD then apparently Lisp is the way to go. There are massive Lisp libraries available for use with AutoCAD.

We tend to see the programming world from the perspective of business computing, but when you move into other fields like Engineering, Scientific research, and Gaming for example, then things tend to be very different.

Paul.

James Watson

Posts: 2024
Nickname: watson
Registered: Sep, 2005

Re: Learning Lisp Posted: Mar 9, 2007 8:35 AM
Reply to this message Reply
> I'm the same in some ways. What I did was downloaded Lisp
> In a Box and got busy coding. When you get stuck you can
> always refer back to the book.
>
> Just an idea.
>
> Paul.

Yeah, I was thinking I'd skim through and then start on something. I just need to have a project. I have a couple in mind. I guess I'm thinking they are too aggressive at this point in time.

Silvio Steponas

Posts: 1
Nickname: silvio
Registered: Mar, 2007

Re: What Are Your Java Pain Points, Really? Posted: Mar 22, 2007 1:21 PM
Reply to this message Reply
3) Chaos. Try to build an app with JSF. First, you need to know JSP and many Java web app legacy concepts and idiosyncracies. You want basic security? Oh, you have to use Servlet technologies for that. Really basic data table features like paging/sorting? You need an Apache add-on (which was a big can of worms). AJAX? Try ajax4jsf (another buggy can of worms). You finally realize basic JSF/JSP is terrible and has dozens of shortcomings and flaws? Switch to Facelets or the newer Shale? But of course, everything is incompatible with those: any sample code you get, any tutorial you read, NetBeans Visual Web Designer won't work with those at all. To do basic JSF, you need to use dozens of different libraries and toolsets from dozens of different sources, and getting all those pieces to work together is a exponentially complex task.

I like the diversity with Java. I like having multiple IDEs to choose from, and multiple web servers, and multiple development frameworks, and sub-frameworks, and framework variations, and frameworks on top other frameworks, and meta-frameworks, and libraries for various combinations of the above. But I like having some semblance of order and sanity a little better.

2) Buggy. Just a quick list of bugs I hit on my last web project:
- Java 1.5.06. Major memory leaking bug (very kind Sun engineers actually worked with me to isolate and confirm. Fixed in 1.5.08)
- Eclipse. WTP was completely unusable (mainly WTP 1.0 but also WTP 1.5). All kinds of bizarre and idiosyncratic bugs with deploying/redeploying my web apps. (The non-WTP portions of Eclipse were rock solid. I switched to NetBeans which was extremely stable)
- Apache Tomahawk (various bugs + quirks)
- ajax4jsf (various idiosyncratic bugs. eventually replaced with custom AJAX code)
- Hiberante. ORM sounds great, looks great on resumes. We hit major memory use and CPU problems. After many painful weeks of frantic debugging, we stripped ORM out of many areas in favor of plain SQL+JDBC.
- Both Apache Tomcat and Glassfish. Various small bugs. Found time consuming work arounds.

1) No good overall web dev solution. Compare to ASP.NET: Every year, ASP.NET has been aggressively improved with major functionality upgrades. And the releases are extremely well organized: when ASP.NET 2.0 shipped, it was 100% ready on day one. The IDE was completely ready to go, with configuration editing, auto-completion, deployment, debugging, full fledged and improved visual designer, server support was ready, everything was extremely polished and production ready on day one. Also ASP.NET has the best user forum support, book support, tutorial support. If you pick up ESRI GIS, it of course supports ASP.NET, and gives easy to follow tutorials. You don't have to sift through a bunch of grassroots hobby projects like Facelets and Shale to get ASP.NET to a usable point, either. It's ready to roll right away.

Craig McClanahan, the designer of JSF, founder of Shale, and project lead for NetBeans Web Pack, writes about his dream of getting Shale support in the NetBeans Web Pack. Microsoft actually ships timely and feature rich new versions of ASP.NET that are finished, complete, and fully coordinated. They don't dream about it or pine about or float on cloud nine about it, they actually do it.

GJ sonke

Posts: 2
Nickname: gjsonke
Registered: Nov, 2007

Re: What Are Your Java Pain Points, Really? Posted: Nov 15, 2007 5:32 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Java is extremely inaccessible... in my opinion. Who has the same experience?

Let me apologise beforehand, I was raised without atari and DOS command prompt, but I roughtly understand how the PC works. But not understanding how to navigate a PC does not render one as a idiot, I'm just used to GUI's. I started programming in JAVA for my studies, under guidance off-course. We used an applet builder, GUI enough, but not satisfying. Coding and the theoretical buildup of code was easy for me, I had a talent for that (at least), but the stuff around it, the 'environment', was so vague, the command prompt commands or the actual compiling of the code... some Java Program did it for me. That was a long time ago, Recently I picked up C#, which is very similar to Java, syntacticly, but it is a 1000 times more accessible. You type your code, press F5, and the damn thing just works. Along the way you learn stuff. Microsoft are no fools just yet. Wonderful! I was not interested in the environment, I wanted results, and now!!! And C# gave that. What I loved the most is that C# had tutorials for kids!!! Which just goes to show how accessible C# is. I cannot say that Java has the same. It's kind of an excusive domain.

Recently, I was forced to look at some Java stuff. I was interested, very interested, but was completely put-off. What a terrible experience. One has to be at least a programming freak, a hacker, a nerd of code, to get to understand the least bit of the Java environment. Any application I had to find first had to be compiled with some odd file that first had to be compiled... I wouldn't consider myself dumb, my talent lies in coding stuff, but this ambiguity around the Java environment is rather inefficient and cutting oneself short. Java had such potential, still has, with the platform-independancy, but who the hell is interested if it is so vague and inaccessible? Cross-compilers are coming up, and fast... Most people want results and thereafter get on with life. why do people love such complexity? The ease of C# has its roots in the Java code, but for some reason, Java is only exscusive to people that get aroused by piles and piles of code and ms-dos prompts. Why make applications at all? we want to speed up things don't we? I can't say that eclipse is an improvement, because you still cannot see what the hell you are making. It's almost as if mouse-fearing Java Programmers love working without GUI's... what's the point of that? You want to get stuff done with ease right? Buttons are lovely!!! Click click and we're done! And the biggest fool behind the PC can use it too... like me.

Anyways, it's a little frustrating because I find a lot of very cool stuff being programmed in Java, but I end up not being able to use it... not because I am lazy, but because I have a lot of other cool things to do than spend en evening on figuring out how the I should extract jar files so that I can try out this and this application which could just as well have been made in C# and with 2 clicks you can get your results. Really, GUI's are not evil, they're useful. You're lazy if you don't build one... or just a fundamentalist Java-programmer... Building a GUI takes 32 seconds in C#, in java...? I wouldn't know myself, never had the privalegde to make one (spent a frigg'n 4 hours trying to figure out which JRE I needed ad which update was required for the J Studio... my God, with microsoft: click-click, run, install, use, compile, finished!). And moreover, GUI's will spark interest in the dummies amongst us, inspire people to come and figure out programming. Really, programming is not only about the internat workings and the telex-type sceens, you can do really cool stuff with it. The internal workings will reveal themselves in due time. I would love to learn more about Java but please, make it a little friendlier... and a little less tradition...

Visual J# would have been cool, if Java would have left them alone...

GJ sonke

Posts: 2
Nickname: gjsonke
Registered: Nov, 2007

Re: What Are Your Java Pain Points, Really? Posted: Jan 17, 2008 10:07 AM
Reply to this message Reply
Can I add to this?

Java is DISGUSTING! Pathetic! Horrible! Painful! Utterly daft, silly and now completely unnecessary. Why Java when you have C++ and C# and crosscompilers? Why can Cmicrosoft build such a beautiful Visual Studio that works with 2 clicks and not Sun Systems? Very stupid, almost disrespectful. AAAARRGGHHHH!!!

I am frustrated because the company that I am working for is still stuck in the Java-age. Because of this, I am going to look for a new job. Death to Java, a very quick one, Java is a disgrace, it could be so simple...

Flat View: This topic has 264 replies on 18 pages [ « | 15  16  17  18 ]
Topic: What Are Your Java Pain Points, Really? Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: The Future of Online Dialog


Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us