Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:18:36 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <3BDED2DC.A04B6822@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.011029134349.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <3BDE6ED3.64DC027E@mindspring.com> <15326.50508.909158.688936@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > > Java has several problems: > > > > 1) It can't do multiple inheritance > > This is certainly not a problem. This is a good thing, and one of the > strengths of Java. It doesn't bring in all of the *crap* that C++ does. > In any case, you can perform almost all of the same functionality using > interfaces, in a much cleaner fashion. I've yet to find a good example > of multiple inheritance that couldn't also be done in a simpler fashion > using Java + inheritance. I've run into several instances where I needed to marshall objects from a local node to a remote node, and then reinstance them, without explicitly knowing anything other than that they inherit from a particular class, and then later marshall them again (either back or elsewhere). Sprite has a nice example of this in their FS implementation, when doing user space developement of FS code. Choices (University of Kentucky, circa 1994 Bell Labs sponsored research) has similar issues, and the whole OS supports object inheritance. I've also seen a number of design patterns that could not be used without a bridge pattern because of the lack of multiple inheritance (i.e. instead of doing an overlay of the common parts of two or more patterns, you had to use reflection to make the common parts act common, even though they weren't actually common). Java is really "dumbed down" in order to make it safe for people who aren't very meticulous about their coding. > > 2) You can instance classes without constructing them (the > > JavaMail API has a number of examples of this) > > And your point is? Instance but unconstructed objects are inherently bad. > > 3) Strong typing is for weak minds > > That's an elitist attitude from someone who hasn't tried using it. I've implemented the majority of the Java 1.2 and JavaX 1.2 classes, as well as the JavaMail API in C++. I've also done not an inconsiderable amount of work in Rational Rose with "plain old Java". I think that historically, we will find that Java will end up being a compiled language, and will serve predominantly as a cross platform API. This is, I think, the reason that Microsoft targeted it for the "embrace and extend" treatment. The inability to apply a decent optimizer to JIT'ed code is just the icing on the cake. FWIW: dynamic scoping is cool; but garbage collection is not something one can afford, when designing an embedded system. The InterJet, going forward, was intended to have much code in Java (in fact, it had some interesting Java code from the IBM Almaden research center in it); Archie Cobbs is also a major contributor to Kaffe, and was one of the primary developers on the InterJet. That said, the overhead of using Java was _significant_, and one of the things we had to do (add a more powerful CPU and more RAM) pushed in a number of undesirable attributes, as wll, including, but not limited to, the addition of moving parts to the product (fans) to dissipate the increased heat from the increased hardware bulk required. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BDED2DC.A04B6822>