SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 190
  1. #101
    Non-Member Musicbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    india
    Posts
    1,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good examples of java programming can be seen on yahoo games.

    http://games.yahoo.com just take a look! java is much faster than php because it updates instantly.

  2. #102
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My comment was nothing of the kind, sorry if it came through like that.

    I was stating out my own conclusion based on a long experience in a wide variety of programming languages. And I believe that most of developers with enough experience would reach similar conclusions.

    I don't expect you to take my statements for granted. I would like you (and others) to take them into consideration, because I have formed them upon what I saw myself. In other words: use a variety of languages in a variety of projects (both small and large, Snaily) and then make up your own thoughts based on your own experience, not on something someone told you or you read in a book. (PC disclaimer: I'm not accusing anyone here of anything.)

  3. #103
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I already have my own experience. Right now its 5 years of web-development (working as a freelancer for small to mid-size companies, developing small CMS with minimal requirements, to rather complex shop-systems) and 4 years of desktop-development (ranging from small tools over frameworks to large and complex applications).

    Actually, so far I only read two books related to computers. The first one was "Designing With Web Standards" by Jeffry Zeldman, which was a waste of time and money (I already knew everything he told) and the second one was "Swing hacks" (this one was an even bigger waste of time - at least for me because I already knew everything that was written in there).
    The only other book, somehow related to computers, I'm considering to read is "On Lisp". Though I wanted to read "Head First: Design Patterns", but from what I've seen so far that'd be a waste of time again...
    I prefer reading books from Kafka and Nietzsche. At least there's a gain for me by reading those books.

    Thus my opinion is based on my experience, just like yours.
    I have not seen myself being more productive with dynamic typing. It's just that easy.
    You have experienced that, and this is perfectly possible, but others might not have. I, for example, am not more productive with dynamic typing. (And, like I said, I've written enough code to say this.)

  4. #104
    SitePoint Wizard stereofrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    Yes yes of course...name one popular language that doesn't use either static typing or dymanic typing?
    The are a couple of "popular" languages which are "typeless" (i.e. have only one string type). Javascript is an example of "type-unaware" language (there are types, but no type-checking).

    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    Try also looking into the research journals on programming languages...you'll find all sorts of stuff written on typing, proof carrying code, program verification etc. The latter two involves things that are like typing on steroids. That is to say...in the real world things are not moving away from things like static typing.
    Not sure what you're trying to say here... My point is that "static" debates are kind of stupid, to be honest. What do you consider to be "better" -- your hands or your feet? Usually, you need both, so I believe the truth is in the middle.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDragonMaster
    I prefer reading books from Kafka and Nietzsche.
    Back to topic, "Die Verwandlung" is an excellent illustration of disadvantages of dynamic typing.

  5. #105
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDragonMaster
    Actually, so far I only read two books related to computers. The first one was "Designing With Web Standards" by Jeffry Zeldman, which was a waste of time and money (I already knew everything he told) and the second one was "Swing hacks" (this one was an even bigger waste of time - at least for me because I already knew everything that was written in there).
    You've read two books and learned nothing from either... This comment just about tells me everything I need to know about you.

    Thank you and good bye.

  6. #106
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    To claim that you already knew everthing that was in the claimed books is silly, inmature and a comment I would expect from a non professional; The author(s) of those books have put their years of experience, their knowledge and skill into them, and for you to turn round and say that you already knew everthing that those books are teaching you is complete and utter stupidity and ignorance.

    Please, to save yourself further embarrassment, do not continue to talk about things that you have little, or no real experience of.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Technical books are supposed to provide technical data, right? If I know about the technical stuff in these books, they won't teach me anything. I didn't say these books were a bad read for everyone. They just were not worth the read for me, because I knew what they discussed.
    The second book is perhaps the best example. It's a collection of "hacks" to get things done with a GUI-toolkit. I'm fairly comfortable with this toolkit, thus I haven't got any new information about how to do things (except for the "hacks" written by a co-author, but then, he had already published them in his weblog, thus I already knew them).
    I wasn't the target audience for these books, because they were written for a limited subset of possible readers (webdesigners not yet having made the transition to standards on the one side, developers that want to learn some more tricks for their applications on the other hand).

    That's not ignorant, its just that my own knowledge included the stuff the author wrote about. Actually, he himself wrote (as an answer to the critics) that the book was written for beginners or intermediates. Thought I was his target-group, but wasn't. That's sad, but neigther his nor my fault. He has clearly shown that he can do much more advanced things, but they were not part of that book (I bought it because I've been impressed by the other things he did so far).
    You can't put your complete experience in a single book (at least in a short one - except if your experience is really small), thus it should be quite clear that some books cover only topics you know about already.
    We could further argue about the word "everything", as you could force me to say that I certainly could tell you one or two things I learned from these books (might be as minor as a name of a font for the Mac ), but then I thought I was talking to intelligent people, that would be able to argue with arguments instead of personal attacks and the like.

    Anyway, I don't even know why I'm trying to answer to this jokes you're posting.
    It's really off-topic and certainly doesn't remove any of the points I made - and that were not yet disproven by anyone.
    And, if I'm really "utterly stupid", as you said, then it should be twice as easy to argue, shouldn't it?

    Well, while I think about it, claiming you'd know everything you need to know about someone else because of one statement (while doing a great job at ignoring arguments), is even more ignorant and more stupid than claiming you didn't learn anything from a technical article/book.
    I wouldn't have said that from another book, though. Just the technical ones that I read with the expectation to learn something technial that I didn't know - the technical thing...

    BTW: There came a phrase into my mind when I read your comment, Dr., "Ignorance is strength". I believe I read that in "1984", which was a really good read from that I learned quite a few things.

    But you're right. I should stop to discuss here. It started with a discussion, but now its personal offense, and I don't have the intention to help you with that.
    Thats far from any discussion and not worth my time. Don't forget: Ignorance is strength, so stay ignorant and continue to use personal attacks if you happen to run out of arguments...

  8. #108
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, how can I argue with you now? But I might add that there is one particular point you made ealier which worries me...

    > Though I wanted to read "Head First: Design Patterns", but from what I've seen so far that'd be a
    > waste of time again...

    Considering that this book, in your view is a waste of time, then just how come this book - this book in particular - has got nothing but rave reviews huh? I might point out that in general, O'Reilly books, covering any number of topics, for the most part get good to excellent reviews, and are much praised.

    I've got 6 O'Reilly books on my shelf at the moment, and I know why they are much sought after books, but do you know why...

    But for you in particular, it's a waste of time huh? Why I have to ask myself, and that is why I posted what I posted, but one thing I can agree with you is that, yes this is going off topic

  9. #109
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've had a short look for the book in the local libary. I liked what I've seen (the style of the book is fantastic), but it just tells about design patterns. I'm familiar with them already, thus I might be better of by spending my time with something else (like "On Lisp", which I also mentioned as a nice read - I'm reading it currently).
    Thus it seems to be a waste of time for me. And I'm talking about only me here - not you, not someone else.
    Maybe I should clearify "waste of time", though. I believe there's a misunderstanding here. "Waste of time" means, in my case, that I could've spend my time better by doing something else (learning something I don't know about, working, living, you know, that kind of stuff). Also, on one of the first pages the authors of this book said that the book wasn't written for people that are already familiar with design patterns. I am familiar with them (I'm no expert, but it seems as if it's enough for now), so again: I think I'm not the target audience for the book.
    If I was looking for a book about design patterns, than it'd most likely be a reference book.

    The book itself seems to be really great. I'd certainly learn something while reading it, but I believe it'd be less than by doing something else.

  10. #110
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
    Posts
    706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In other words: use a variety of languages in a variety of projects (both small and large, Snaily)
    Not sure why my name is mentioned here?
    The author(s) of those books have put their years of experience, their knowledge and skill into them
    Well....in his defense the book "Swing hacks" is not very good. Also there are plenty of bad books out there...despite the fact that the people that wrote them "put their years...." etc. Writing a good book is a skill in itself one that not many technie people have (I know I'd be bad at it).

  11. #111
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    Not sure why my name is mentioned here?
    Because of this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    I've yet to hear one person say things like this that have actually worked on large projects.

  12. #112
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What do you consider a large project?

  13. #113
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Selkirk
    What do you consider a large project?
    This, among others...

  14. #114
    Non-Member Gator99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicbox
    good examples of java programming can be seen on yahoo games.

    http://games.yahoo.com just take a look! java is much faster than php because it updates instantly.
    That's client side java, it updates instanly because it connects to the game application server through a persistent socket, not through a stateless http connection. The discussion here is about server side techology.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think such debation of Java Vs php is useless and just a wast of time.

    PhP, as its title suggests, which is Personal Home Page, is born as a web programming language, and it is only good at it.

    Java is a general language and can do much more than Php.

    Php focuses on a niche application, web. And php does pretty well in this. It costs less to develop small-to-medium applications in php. That's all.

  16. #116
    SitePoint Guru thr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    664
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tntpower
    PhP, as its title suggests, which is Personal Home Page, is born as a web programming language, and it is only good at it.
    Actually PHP is a recursive acronym for "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor"

  17. #117
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Etnu
    EVERY language is "compiled".
    Even JavaScript? I seem to remember being told that scripting languages like JavaScript, VBScript and PHP were all interpreted languages.

    To try and answer the original post, the question is largely un-answerable by other people. If you have a specific situation, then get a Java expert and get a PHP expert, give them the same task and see who does the best job. While your at it, note who takes longer to complete the task, and which one requires the most server resources. Then change the spec and see who gets things sorted quickest. I make no predictions here, because it all depends on the task in question, and how you predict the future. If your task is complex and heavy-weight, and you expect to need to maintain it in the future, with a large team of developers, then I would suggest that you think of Java first.
    If you have a very small app, that will need little maintenance, and you know PHP yourself, then that is probably a better option, even if you can prove that Java runs faster.
    Throw away your Calculator -
    get instant results from www.calcResult.com

  18. #118
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    > If your task is complex and heavy-weight, and you expect to need to maintain it in the future, with a
    > large team of developers, then I would suggest that you think of Java first.

    Why?

  19. #119
    SitePoint Wizard Ren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,060
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by omnicity
    Even JavaScript? I seem to remember being told that scripting languages like JavaScript, VBScript and PHP were all interpreted languages.
    Some JavaScript implementations compile down to Java bytecode (and with a JIT VM some may end up as native code). Rhino does it I think.

  20. #120
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thr
    Actually PHP is a recursive acronym for "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor"
    Originally it was called "Personal Home Page Tools".

  21. #121
    SitePoint Guru BerislavLopac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tntpower
    PhP, as its title suggests, which is Personal Home Page, is born as a web programming language, and it is only good at it.
    Actually, it is also a pretty capable generic scripting language. But you are correct, though, its greatest strength lies in Web applications.

  22. #122
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    Cute...you say this like its actually true! Other advantages of static typing have been mentioned in this post..why not explain why they aren't actually advantages? I've yet to hear one person say things like this that have actually worked on large projects.
    Tell you what; you PM me a list of your latest projects and I'll PM you a list of mine. We can continue the pissing match all you want, but I can assure you that I work on larger projects than you do.

    Yes yes of course...name one popular language that doesn't use either static typing or dymanic typing? Try also looking into the research journals on programming languages...you'll find all sorts of stuff written on typing, proof carrying code, program verification etc. The latter two involves things that are like typing on steroids. That is to say...in the real world things are not moving away from things like static typing.
    Javascript is an example of "type-unaware" language (there are types, but no type-checking).
    Javascript is certainly aware of types; try the === operator. Yes, it does automatic type coercion (as does PHP), but it certainly has a concept of different types. Now, granted, javascript's types aren't really the textbook CS variety (string, function, object, array, and number being the only first-class types), but it's certainly aware of them.

    To claim that you already knew everthing that was in the claimed books is silly, inmature and a comment I would expect from a non professional; The author(s) of those books have put their years of experience, their knowledge and skill into them, and for you to turn round and say that you already knew everthing that those books are teaching you is complete and utter stupidity and ignorance.
    Nah, there are plenty of books that can teach you absolutely nothing. Usually it's a case of buying the wrong book. I once bought an introductory javascript book (maybe 3 or 4 years ago) because I wanted to learn more about closures (since nothing I could find said anything about them). Unfortunately the book was pretty much geared towards someone who didn't know how to program at all.

    PhP, as its title suggests, which is Personal Home Page, is born as a web programming language, and it is only good at it.
    Actually PHP stands for "PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor", and it's quite useful for other things besides web programming (mainly shell scripts; I know of at least 3 major web companies that use PHP as a primary shell scripting language).

    Php focuses on a niche application, web. And php does pretty well in this. It costs less to develop small-to-medium applications in php. That's all.
    There's not really any cost difference between PHP & Java, except for the cost of talent. Now, here's the rub: Java programmers who are "good" are a dime a dozen because pretty much every university on the planet has it as a part of their CS curriculum. PHP, on the other hand, has a pretty small pool of top-tier talent available, and those guys get sucked up by companies like Yahoo!

    That is to say...in the real world things are not moving away from things like static typing.
    Except that 9 out of 10 new web apps being created is using one of the "P" languages (Perl, Python, PHP) or Ruby. I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me which one of those is based on static typing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren
    Some JavaScript implementations compile down to Java bytecode (and with a JIT VM some may end up as native code). Rhino does it I think.
    Well, anybody dumb enough to try to convert Javascript to java is wasting their time since the languages have nothing to do with one another other than name and usage of curly brackets. Java is to Javascript as C is to Lisp.

    Javascript is converted to bytecode which is then fed into an interpreter. No, it's not compiled to machine code, and it's not all that efficient, but the argument remains the same: programming languages are ALWAYS converted to some intermediate form so that they can be more easily fed into the "machine" that's executing the instructions. That machine might be a processor, a virtual machine, or some other byte code interpreter. If somebody made a computer that natively processed PHP byte code, then, well, all PHP scripts would suddenly be compiled to "native machine code".

  23. #123
    simple tester McGruff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,690
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Livingston
    Please, to save yourself further embarrassment, do not continue to talk about things that you have little, or no real experience of.
    That's got to be the quote of the day. That's your job, right?

  24. #124
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
    Posts
    706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tell you what; you PM me a list of your latest projects and I'll PM you a list of mine. We can continue the pissing match all you want, but I can assure you that I work on larger projects than you do.
    Apparently you didn't get the point of the comment: You need to justify what you say not just repeat some crap you read off a website. But yes you can assure yourself that you work on larger projects that someone you know nothing about...childish nonsense.
    Except that 9 out of 10 new web apps being created is using one of the "P" languages (Perl, Python, PHP) or Ruby. I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me which one of those is based on static typing.
    Do you have a reference that justifies that static?
    programming languages are ALWAYS converted to some intermediate form
    Purely interpreted languages are not.

  25. #125
    SitePoint Wizard Ren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,060
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Etnu
    Well, anybody dumb enough to try to convert Javascript to java is wasting their time since the languages have nothing to do with one another other than name and usage of curly brackets. Java is to Javascript as C is to Lisp.

    Javascript is converted to bytecode which is then fed into an interpreter. No, it's not compiled to machine code, and it's not all that efficient, but the argument remains the same
    I thought thats what I said. But nevermind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Etnu
    programming languages are ALWAYS converted to some intermediate form so that they can be more easily fed into the "machine" that's executing the instructions.
    Not always, assembly language is not converted to an intermediate form.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •