objects and arrays in Java - Page 2

Bunkertor 7 · 04-20-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanchek

Yeah, you'll be fine. Don't look at it as learning the language as much as learning the OOD concepts and understanding how to implement them. That is far more valuable than the particulars of any language.

Read The Daily WTF for examples of the massive stupidity we run into on a daily basis, due to "programmers" that were little more than vocationally trained to implement certain design patterns in a certain language.

Though, the Java GUI stuff in your next class is probably a lame waste of time IMO.

What I found humorous is that in order to even run any Java, you first have to download the JVM unless it's already packaged with some software. Then you have to compile the code yourself (unless there's some way to create self executing Java files efficiently). While this isn't a difficult task, will average Joe Blow know how to do this without someone sitting right beside him and instructing him?

Why would the Java GUI stuff be a waste of time anyways? I don't really disagree, but it does make the program easier for inexperienced computer users to work with.

Sanchek · 04-21-2006, 02:14 PM

You just don't see many gainful Java projects relying heavily on a UI. Other than those train-wreck Java applets embedded in websites in the 90's, Java UIs are pretty scarce. The main use of Java in the real world is on the back end of apps running on non-MS servers. They usually have either a MFC/.NET client or drive a web interface. Very rarely a Java UI that the end user sees.

Your observations about the JVM package are similar to how I'd generally describe the entire environment. Purists may scoff, but the amateurish IDEs and lack of support will always bar Java from being as popular as it could be with developers that have a CEO to answer to.

Java bashing aside, it's just as good a language as any to learn OOP/OOD with. Hell, we used Smalltalk when I was in school.

Benito Fireslinger · 04-22-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

amateurish IDEs

eclipse is pretty bad ass...

but VIM > *

Luthair · 04-25-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanchek

C# is Java for people who work in the real world.

As languages, they're really very similar. Understanding concepts is more important than worrying about the syntax of one language or another.

Check a job board, there are many more Java positions than C# ones.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

04-21-2006, 02:14 PM	#17 (permalink)
Sanchek Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 266 +0 Internets	You just don't see many gainful Java projects relying heavily on a UI. Other than those train-wreck Java applets embedded in websites in the 90's, Java UIs are pretty scarce. The main use of Java in the real world is on the back end of apps running on non-MS servers. They usually have either a MFC/.NET client or drive a web interface. Very rarely a Java UI that the end user sees. Your observations about the JVM package are similar to how I'd generally describe the entire environment. Purists may scoff, but the amateurish IDEs and lack of support will always bar Java from being as popular as it could be with developers that have a CEO to answer to. Java bashing aside, it's just as good a language as any to learn OOP/OOD with. Hell, we used Smalltalk when I was in school.