The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
As an embedded engineer, I've only worked on one project that had enough memory to support java. The only snark I'd have for Java is the lack of unsigned integers! I will say that my favorite editor is java based (jEdit).
Depends on what you what domain you are working in. I wrote a DAB (digital Aufio Broadcasting) decoder in C++ and simplified versions - just as a programming exercise - in Ada and in java.
The type of program of such a decoder requires extensive interaction with libraries written in C
(to name a few, device handling, fft transforms, and aac decoding).
In my personal opinion, binding java structures to C libraries is a crime.
btw the Ada binding is simpler since I was using the Gnat compiler system, but even then ...
Java is just a language, it is not my choice, but for many applications it seems more or less OK.
Personally I do not like the GUI handling, but that is probably a matter of taste.
The misery with binding to non-java (read: C) libraries is such that I would not recommend it
for applications where one depends on that kind of libraries
(I dislike all kinds of so-called integrated environments such as IntelliJ or whatever,
right now I am writing some stuff where I (more or less) have to use VS as development
environment. It is probably my ignorance, but I absolutely dislike the destruction of
the formats I use in my coding, and the error messages are a horror. For me the command line tools such as vim, qmake, mae and the GCC suite - with gdb as debugger under Linux - are
the ideal development tools)
What's wrong with Java is that it's 30 years old or something, and its architecture is a prisoner of what was available at the time: it no longer makes any sense now that richer and more capable systems exist. And it doesn't have properties, which is ridiculous.
I've done a lot of work in Java and I can say that I'm not a huge fan of it. If it works good for you and you like it then there is nothing wrong with it.
there's no point in bashing languages, if they become unpopular enough they go away on their own or adapt.
Yes, 'journalism' is in quotes, because that's being very generous - and I just couldn't think of anything else to call it. Suggestions welcome!
A couple of days back ZDNet published an articled, entitled: "What is Agile software development? Everything you need to know about delivering better code, faster". So what's my gripe?
* Agile must have been around for nearly 20 years by now, so this isn't news.
* The article is a one minute read, so I don't think it covers everything we need to know.
* It's just regurgitating stuff that's been said a million times already.
* Without making any effort to show proof, it repeats the Agile marketing mantra: "better code, faster". See sub-rant below!
I'm guessing what happened is:
ZDNet Editor: "Guys we don't have any stuff for our site today". Mark The Trainee: "I've heard of this thing called 'Agile'. Should I do something on that?". ZDNet Editor: "Ermmmmmm, anyone else got anything?". Everyone else: Carries on playing PacMan [They are 20 years behind!] ZDNet Editor: "OK Mark, that will have to do!"
Yes, I want proof that we get "better code, faster". Did anyone ever actually put this claim to the test? I'd like to see two teams, develop exactly the same application. One using Agile, the other using their chosen, non-Agile, methodology - e.g. Waterfall. Record the man-hours taken and have them, independently, code reviewed and tested. Yes, I'm a sceptic. About, pretty much, everything. Is that a bad thing?
So many writers/bloggers just don't understand the subject and continually repeat wrong information and hype -- and it becomes a sad sad cycle.
On the other hand... v1 is never good. But by v3 things start to get good -- because you have user feedback. So getting to v3 faster is a good thing.
And Agile is all about getting that user feedback sooner rather than later.
But Agile will not magically make v1 good.
Of course, you may also irritate your early-adopters by constantly changing the app on them, so maintaining a dialogue with them important.
Per subrant: "Agile" was developed for managements needs and not that of developers. A lot of rapid piece (of shyte) to present so they never attend a meeting empty-handed. I'll stop lest I extend your subrant.
Journalism? "These days", all you have are talking heads on TV/Radio/other-latest-online-incarnations. There scripts are written by the crop of ignoramus' that the school system has been turning out for some while, now. No one checks anything. No one knows anything. And, to a substantial extent, catering to their audience, no one cares about anything . . . . . . . except, of course, not having a signal for their hand-held impediment and thus not getting texts and tweets.
Actually, . . . . nah, another rant is brewing . . . above is enough.
Without making any effort to show proof, it repeats the Agile marketing mantra: "better code, faster".
Is that like the new world order's slogan, "Build back better"?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
this is not aimed at programers or even Business Analysts or even Programming Team Managers. It is aimed at upper bees who are always 20 years behind. Which is why we end up with paired programming and Agile rooms.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer