<< Can you use Solaris on x86 platforms? If you can, I didn't know that, guess you learn something new each day. >>
I heard from a co-worker that you can. I'm not familiar with Sun, so I'll leave it at that. Don't quote me.
<< Can you use Solaris on x86 platforms? If you can, I didn't know that, guess you learn something new each day. >>
I heard from a co-worker that you can. I'm not familiar with Sun, so I'll leave it at that. Don't quote me.
Sorry for the quote but I have to
<< My boss was doing some consulting work at my university and they were trying to build a scalable, education web application running completely in Java. They were telling him how excited they were with a bunch of stuff they self-developed because they weren't available. He told me that he was just nodding his head because they sounded nothing more than something equivalent to COM object pooling, MSMQ, etc, which has been around for years and could've been developed at a fraction of the time they took. I believe this happened last year some time. >>
The problem with that is it's Microsoft-centric which is not bad in and of itself, but if you have mostly Unix systems (which most universities have) then you have to buy new hardware and software licenses. If it were a business world situation then your boss should have had them switch to the MS solution. I don't want to get into a MS-bashing session, MS is fine for certain situations and Open Source is good for others. Depends on your needs I guess.
<< My boss was doing some consulting work at my university and they were trying to build a scalable, education web application running completely in Java. They were telling him how excited they were with a bunch of stuff they self-developed because they weren't available. He told me that he was just nodding his head because they sounded nothing more than something equivalent to COM object pooling, MSMQ, etc, which has been around for years and could've been developed at a fraction of the time they took.
I believe this happened last year some time. >>The problem with that is it's Microsoft-centric which is not bad in and of itself, but if you have mostly Unix systems (which most universities have) then you have to buy new hardware and software licenses. If it were a business world situation then your boss should have had them switch to the MS solution. I don't want to get into a MS-bashing session, MS is fine for certain situations and Open Source is good for others. Depends on your needs I guess.
It was at a university, but it was a paid project. So the developers were PAID.
I wonder what costs more. A couple of new servers + Windows 2000 license? Or dragging on a development project a lot longer than needed just because they insisted on using Java? I'm trying to say exactly what you are trying to say. They both got their places. I have no problems against Java. I'd use it if I had to. I'm just a bit bitter these days because I got quite fed up with idiots/zealots that treat me like sh*t (at my other workplace) just because I work with Microsoft stuff. Hopefully I'm not venting at you. That's not my intention.
Last time I checked, my boss never bothers to convince anti-Microsoft people to use Microsoft-based solutions, unless they are willing to. He just takes his 1/2 hour consulting fee and finds another client. I'm not sure why they hired him to begin with.
I wonder what costs more. A couple of new servers + Windows 2000 license? Or dragging on a development project a lot longer than needed just because they insisted on using Java? I'm trying to say exactly what you are trying to say. They both got their places. I have no problems against Java. I'd use it if I had to. I'm just a bit bitter these days because I got quite fed up with idiots/zealots that treat me like sh*t (at my other workplace) just because I work with Microsoft stuff. Hopefully I'm not venting at you. That's not my intention.
Last time I checked, my boss never bothers to convince anti-Microsoft people to use Microsoft-based solutions, unless they are willing to. He just takes his 1/2 hour consulting fee and finds another client. I'm not sure why they hired him to begin with.
Sorry bout what happened to you about your last job joohang.
But getting back to what AMDPwred was asking, Java or VB, I still would say Java for web and VB for client side. I just like being able to use an application without being tied into a particular OS which is what web applications allow you to do. I find that VB/ASP stuff is tied into IE which leaves everyone using *nix systems out in the cold. Distributed, browser-based computing I think is the future and I swear I'm not an advertising firm for Sun!
We'll see though when .Net comes out. I'm very interested but a little skeptical.
But getting back to what AMDPwred was asking, Java or VB, I still would say Java for web and VB for client side. I just like being able to use an application without being tied into a particular OS which is what web applications allow you to do. I find that VB/ASP stuff is tied into IE which leaves everyone using *nix systems out in the cold. Distributed, browser-based computing I think is the future and I swear I'm not an advertising firm for Sun!
We'll see though when .Net comes out. I'm very interested but a little skeptical.
<< I find that VB/ASP stuff is tied into IE which leaves everyone using *nix systems out in the cold. >>
Assuming that you're about the web client, ASP is NOT tied to IE. Not at all. And IE is the best web client there is, any ways.
You are entitled to your opinion and you offered your point of view while not personally attacking mine. I respect you for that.
<< And IE is the best web client there is, any ways. >>
Amen brother! Don't get me started on the Netscape 4.x browsers. Although I do like the latest Mozilla release. But you have to realize not everyone can get IE for their systems.
I admit, though, I don't know a lot about ASP. Perhaps it's time I started looking into it.
Definitely get Java, though having Java training is no gaurantee of a job anymore. The market is flooded right now with Java programmers, like one day not too long ago the market was flooded with cobol programmers.
But, Java has server side potential. If you get into Java for client side applets, then forget it. Java on the client side is all but truly deprecated. Java on the server side is exploding.
The future for Java people then is not necessarily just coding in the language. Niche areas, such as EAI, B2B, etc.. are where it is at. Middleware is also very very popular, and you can pull rates from 85$ an hour and up if you have adequate training. Just being a pure Java developer, on the other hand, has rates going from 30-45$, but not higher.
There are plenty of people with pure Java training, so you need to diversify your background.
Just a view from the corporate world.
AMDPwred,
Dude, don't worry about it. It took only 5 years to get to the point where I felt proficient in VB and Java. And I still don't know everything, obviously, but the point is you don't HAVE to know. You gotta learn the fundamentals first in school (or if you're brilliant you can do it on your own) and then you'll learn everything else on the job.
But I'm getting behind on a project I'm working on by responding to this thread. Anandtech should be on my company's banned list!
Dude, don't worry about it. It took only 5 years to get to the point where I felt proficient in VB and Java. And I still don't know everything, obviously, but the point is you don't HAVE to know. You gotta learn the fundamentals first in school (or if you're brilliant you can do it on your own) and then you'll learn everything else on the job.
But I'm getting behind on a project I'm working on by responding to this thread. Anandtech should be on my company's banned list!
I wouldn't do VB first. You need to get a good OOP background. Go with C, C++ and Java/JSP.
amish
amish
Java is harder than Visual Basic.
Java can be run under all platforms while Visual Basic can only be run from Microsoft Platform
Darno
Java can be run under all platforms while Visual Basic can only be run from Microsoft Platform
Darno
OK, I'm learning some stuff. Tell me more about the differences. Please use plain english as I've never had ANY programming at all. Here's a good question, what's this OOP I keep hearing about?
Object Oriented Programming.
The basis for all "good" code.
It makes code easier to use, debug, and re-use.
If you can't do OOP, don't bother programming
amish
The basis for all "good" code.
It makes code easier to use, debug, and re-use.
If you can't do OOP, don't bother programming
amish
The basis for all "good" code.
It makes code easier to use, debug, and re-use.
If you can't do OOP, don't bother programming.
I must take exception with that remark, since we (I) do assembly, primarily writing low level APIs for others in the Java/C++ world to use.
Just because it ain't OOP, doesn't always make it "bad code". For performance reasons, OOP isn't the answer to everyones prayers. OOP tends to lead to bloat code and poor memory management.
It makes code easier to use, debug, and re-use.
If you can't do OOP, don't bother programming.
I must take exception with that remark, since we (I) do assembly, primarily writing low level APIs for others in the Java/C++ world to use.
Just because it ain't OOP, doesn't always make it "bad code". For performance reasons, OOP isn't the answer to everyones prayers. OOP tends to lead to bloat code and poor memory management.
True, OOP isn't designed for non-oop languages or functional languages like cobol or assembly.
<< OOP tends to lead to bloat code and poor memory management. >>
Not if it's written correctly and the programmer take responsibility for the memory he allocates. That's why a good OOP foundation needs to be instilled BEFORE any serious code is written! There are too many so-called "programmers" out ther using these Rapid Application Development (RAD) tools, like VB and Delphi, that have no clue about OOP methodology and the style & organization it will bring to their code. I'm not saying that RAD tools are bad, the programmer just needs to know how to use them to create good, solid OOP code instead of just waving the mouse around to produce a program.
Correclty written OOP code should, theoretically, lead to less bloated code since many parts should be reusable throughout the program.
It will also help with code maintenance as well.
amish
<< OOP tends to lead to bloat code and poor memory management. >>
Not if it's written correctly and the programmer take responsibility for the memory he allocates. That's why a good OOP foundation needs to be instilled BEFORE any serious code is written! There are too many so-called "programmers" out ther using these Rapid Application Development (RAD) tools, like VB and Delphi, that have no clue about OOP methodology and the style & organization it will bring to their code. I'm not saying that RAD tools are bad, the programmer just needs to know how to use them to create good, solid OOP code instead of just waving the mouse around to produce a program.
Correclty written OOP code should, theoretically, lead to less bloated code since many parts should be reusable throughout the program.
It will also help with code maintenance as well.
amish
Trouble is, there is no OOP "standard." OOP correctness is largely left to opinion. We can set a baseline of concepts that a given language must support in order to be considered OOP, but that's only half the battle. It's also important to know, that OOP is not the panacean solution to software. There will be, and already are, paradigm shifts that render OOP obsolete as well. OOP is not something you do, or write. OOP is a mindset, and the proper mindset facilitates the implementation of said in languages that support it.
Many OO purists would argue that VB is not OO because it lacks implementation inheritance (and other things, but this being most notable). True, those who build simple frontends in VB probably never spend time learning OO concepts, but if anyone has actually employed VB in a production environment (e.g. a WinDNA architecture), then they are most certainly familiar with OO concepts. One could even say VB was more advanced than the more traditional languages in terms of OO, as older languages had to be retrofitted with concepts like separation of interface from implementation (don't quote me on that, I don't know when C++ added the idea of abstract base classes).
If we define OO as requiring: polymorphism, genericity, object identification, object messaging, implementation inheritance, etc. (as a lot of OO people do), then almost all languages fall short, with the exception of Smalltalk
Conclusion: I don't consider VB to be the most complete OO environment, but to think of it as being OO inept isn't accurate.
Many OO purists would argue that VB is not OO because it lacks implementation inheritance (and other things, but this being most notable). True, those who build simple frontends in VB probably never spend time learning OO concepts, but if anyone has actually employed VB in a production environment (e.g. a WinDNA architecture), then they are most certainly familiar with OO concepts. One could even say VB was more advanced than the more traditional languages in terms of OO, as older languages had to be retrofitted with concepts like separation of interface from implementation (don't quote me on that, I don't know when C++ added the idea of abstract base classes).
If we define OO as requiring: polymorphism, genericity, object identification, object messaging, implementation inheritance, etc. (as a lot of OO people do), then almost all languages fall short, with the exception of Smalltalk
Conclusion: I don't consider VB to be the most complete OO environment, but to think of it as being OO inept isn't accurate.
I agree, Descartes.
VB can be written with an OO structure. It's just that the people I'm familiar with just sit down with the RAD tool and start creating diaglog boxes, etc., without knowing the organizational background that would make the code much easier to use and maintain.
I just got out of a 3000 level Java class where the instructor had to take 2-weeks out of the schedule to teach OO design so that many of the students didn't put the entire program in the main object.
That's pretty sad for a 3000 level class. You should have a relatively good idea about OO design by then.
amish
VB can be written with an OO structure. It's just that the people I'm familiar with just sit down with the RAD tool and start creating diaglog boxes, etc., without knowing the organizational background that would make the code much easier to use and maintain.
I just got out of a 3000 level Java class where the instructor had to take 2-weeks out of the schedule to teach OO design so that many of the students didn't put the entire program in the main object.
That's pretty sad for a 3000 level class. You should have a relatively good idea about OO design by then.
amish
So true. It is a common misconception with people believing that ASP and VB are "inferior" simply because it is easy enough to quickly write a functioning application without much thinking.
I've seen horrible VB developers and excellent VB developers (Descartes being one of them. I haven't seen any of his code, but I can tell that he knows what he's talking about.)
I've seen horrible VB developers and excellent VB developers (Descartes being one of them.
I haven't seen any of his code, but I can tell that he knows what he's talking about.)TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter