intelligence is a search for satisfaction

Christian Szegedy wrote:

[...]

> I greatly prefer ocaml over Java, but to be fair one should remark
> that the Java environment is simply better suited for developing
> cross platform GUIs. It is not because that Java language itself is
> so great. It is merely reasonably usable, but a lot of effort is
> put into providing extensive and stable libraries for GUI programming.

But, as I tried to point out, that's a consequence, not a cause, of its
popular success.

[...]

-thant
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

[c.l.functional removed due to increasing OT-ness; cc'd to Philippa for politeness' sake]

Gerry Quinn <gerryq.TakeThisOut@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

> In article <Pine.WNT.4.53.0408231832400.2116@SLINKY>, flippa.TakeThisOut@flippac.org
> says...
> >
> > I'm going to play devil's advocate here: why not use MI together with
> > RTTI? I agree dispatching via virtual functions is probably a bad move
> > though.
>
> I can't say why not - I just know I wouldn't want to!
>
> I think, though, MI touches on an issue I would call "data contamination
> of the inheritance hierarchy". I know there's no clear dividing line,
> but I just don't like when objects get too specific, and MI seems to be
> an invitation for this. The words "sword" and "mace" should IMO appear
> only in data files, not in class names.

Probably this bothers you because you have no simple way, in C++, of
converting the word "sword" in a data file into an instance of an
appropriate class (say Weapon_sword) at runtime. In eg Python that
sort of thing is trivial (myWeapon = eval("Weapon_"+weaponName+"()")),
and in Java it's only a bit of a pain
(Weapon myWeapon=Class.forName("Weapon_"+weaponName).newInstance()).

In C++ you have to write quite a bit of code to achieve this (either a
map of weapon_name->class_factory_function, which needs to be
maintained whenever weapons are added/changed; or else a mechanism
based on runtime loading of dynamic factories, which is more complex
at the outset, but more generic and flexible). Which means that having
a "Weapon" class that accepts a "what kind of weapon am I really"
parameter is simpler in the short run, though it breaks encapsulation
something terrible unless you're very disciplined about implementing
the innards of class Weapon (at which point you may has well have done
one of the complicated-but-flexible things in the first place,
especially since you probably have to solve this same issue for
a number of different kinds of interface).

Not quite sure what any of this has to do with MI, though...

-- Joe

--
"We sat and watched as this whole <-- (Died Pretty -- "Springenfall")
blue sky turned to black..."
.... Re-defeat Bush in '04.
--
pub 1024D/BA496D2B 2004-05-14 Joseph A Knapka
Key fingerprint = 3BA2 FE72 3CBA D4C2 21E4 C9B4 3230 94D7 BA49 6D2B
If you really want to get my attention, send mail to
jknapka .at. kneuro .dot. net.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

"Thant Tessman" <thant.RemoveThis@acm.org> escreveu na mensagem
news:cgif47$eoo$1@news.xmission.com...
> Christian Szegedy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I greatly prefer ocaml over Java, but to be fair one should remark
> > that the Java environment is simply better suited for developing
> > cross platform GUIs. It is not because that Java language itself is
> > so great. It is merely reasonably usable, but a lot of effort is
> > put into providing extensive and stable libraries for GUI programming.
>
> But, as I tried to point out, that's a consequence, not a cause, of its
> popular success.

That's not true. Java's GUI libraries (i.e. AWT and Swing) were written by
Sun, not by the community or companies who thought that Java was a popular
language. The latest library (i.e. SWT) could be used support your
assertion, but people written portable GUI applications with AWT and Swing
much before SWT existed. I did this in 1996 when Java was yet another new
language and IIRC it wasn't popular before.

> [...]
>
> -thant

Daniel Yokomizo.

"Papers about extensions to Java whisper quietly "I'm hoping to get a job in
industry after my degree." "
- Marc Hamann


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/8/2004
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Robert Seeger wrote:
> Given your comments, I should probably note... I was just trying to put
> into more understandable wording (to me) what others had been saying. My
> personal viewpoint is that Java isn't really a bad language. It has huge
> code bloat and lots of other problems... but its not too bad to program
> in. I get into discussions with a coworker over the issue sometimes
> because he despises Java, and I like it. In the end, though, I'm more of
> a Tcl person (which makes my adding to the discussion here in
> c.l.functional kind of strange
>
> Rob Seeger

I find people who despise Java are usually not using it for what it's
intended for. Most complaints about Java I hear that have substance are
from people who should be using a scripting language instead.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Ulf Wiger wrote:

> Peter Ashford <me.TakeThisOut@here.there.com> writes:
>
>
>>My point, which you continue to dodge, is that no Java
>>programming I know uses Java because they were told it
>>was wonderful, they use it because it works well for
>>the tasks the use it for.
>
>
> My experience is different. I've seen lots of effort put
> into attemps to use Java because it has seemed to be a
> commercially safe bet. However, some of the hype may have
> backfired, and Java proponents now face the challenge of
> convincing skeptics that Java is becoming more useful.
>
> There is a distinct, and partially well-founded, fear in
> large corporations of betting on technology that could soon
> become obsolete.
>

Fair point
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

> - Very few things are popluar purely because they are good, despite the
> fact that they were not hyped

Well, this is the very core of the original discussion. If you are
right, then it is perfectly consistent to believe that FP delivers a
vast array of benefits over OOP despite the fact that very few
programmers want to use FP.

I personally don't find this especially believable. I don't find it
believable because I've always been interested in languages - I've
written a few, and I've programmed in hundreds. I'm always on the
lookout for new ways of doing things. The tone of this discussion from
the FP proponents would have it that I stumbled out of university having
heard a bit of hyperbole about Java and now spout about it religiously
to all and sundry, knowing nothing else.

The reality is that I began programming twenty years ago in BASIC. I
learnt C, 68k asm, C++, Pascal, LISP, ADA, E and then Java.

I've also investigated Python, Eiffel, Erlang and I'm starting to check
out OCaml.

I've written a couple of LISP-like languages for solving fairly
constrained domanin tasks.

I don't feel that I'm an expert on programming languages by any stretch
of the imagination, but I do beleieve that I have fairly wide experience
(I've been programming for 20 years). I have friends with the same
background who, like me, like to use Java simply because it is fast and
safe to develop with - it's just good at getting things done. Given
where I come from, it pisses me off when people spout rubbish about Java
being used largely on the basis of hype. I investigated Eiffel and
Erlang because they looked like interesting worthwhile languages (they
are) and the same applies to Java (in fact, I rejected it the first time
I looked at it, it was only later when it was really able to do the
things I wanted to do with it.)

I'm sure that there are programmers out there who slavishly do as
they're told, but I can choose my tools, and I choose the ones that just
help me get the job done. I prefer to think that not all programmers
are the mindless drones that some FP claim they are (or just all the OOP
ones, it seems?)
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Robert Seeger wrote:
>
>>- Very few things are popluar purely because they are good, despite
>>the fact that they were not hyped
>
>
> In fact, I can't think of any.
>

Google
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

George Russell wrote:

> Peter Ashford wrote (snipped):
>
>> Sure, GC is one of the features which aid security. You can have
>> sandboxes without GC though, so it's hardly a neccessary feature
>> (although certainly a good one).
>
>
> You *could* I suppose, if you don't care about type safety. But type
> safety is a critical feature of Java's security model.

Sorry? You can't have type safety without GC? Where did you get that from?
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Peter Ashford wrote:
> George Russell wrote:
>
>> Peter Ashford wrote (snipped):
>>
>>> Sure, GC is one of the features which aid security. You can have
>>> sandboxes without GC though, so it's hardly a neccessary feature
>>> (although certainly a good one).
>>
>>
>>
>> You *could* I suppose, if you don't care about type safety. But type
>> safety is a critical feature of Java's security model.
>
>
> Sorry? You can't have type safety without GC? Where did you get that
> from?

My memory of Java syntax is a little rusty, but ...

Foo foo = new Foo ();
destroy(foo);
Bar bar = new Bar ();
*foo = ...;
bar.method(...);
CRASH

Of course I suppose you could have type safety without GC, *if* you never
wanted to deallocate anything, or didn't want pointers, or didn't care about
having to do a run-type type-check every time you referenced an object. I
suppose the designers of Java felt that was too high a price to pay.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

>
> No, Java definitely became popular because of its association in the
> minds of managers and developers with the future of the internet.

But that *isn't* hype.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Peter Ashford wrote:
>>
>> No, Java definitely became popular because of its association in the
>> minds of managers and developers with the future of the internet.
>
>
> But that *isn't* hype.

At the time it most certainly was. Very few people had a clue what the
future of the internet looked like, let alone knew about whatever aspect
of it Java was supposed to enable. All they knew was that Java was
adopted by Netscape (a company whose stock price, for lack of a better
metaphor, went insane).

-thant
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> In article <cgfjkc$6jl$1@news.xmission.com>, thant.DeleteThis@acm.org says...
>
>>Peter Ashford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually Java was pushed on write once, running on the web as applets
>>> and security via the sandbox, not GC.
>>>
>>>GC was _hardly_ the one and only issue that sold Java.
>>
>>My memory was that "remote agents" was the name for "applets" before
>>they came up with the name "applets." Regardless, that's what I meant.
>
>
> It was applets that attracted me to it. Flash and its descendants seem
> to have killed them off, though.
>
> - Gerry Quinn

Indeed, applets were an interesting idea with an appalling
implementation. Flash is quite better suited to the task.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction 

Thant Tessman wrote:

> Peter Ashford wrote:
>
>> Thant Tessman wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>> The claim is not that hype is the main factor in a language's popular
>>> success (although in the case of Java it was).
>>
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. People use Java because it's a good fit for solving their
>> problems.
>
>
> Maybe, but what requires explanation is not merely that Java succeeded,
> but that it succeeded in a way that displaced better designed and more
> esablished alternatives. What does Java provide the application
> developer that wasn't provided by another language that already existed?

Java succeeded because it was a clean OO extention to C that
significantly advanced the language. C++ wasn't - C++ is a
'multiparadigm language' (read "dog's breakfast"). Objective C was a
cleaner extension of C than C++, but unlike Java, it stayed failry close
to the orignal nature of C, which as many have commented in relation to
C++, is in many cases a liabilty.
 >> Stay informed about: intelligence is a search for satisfaction