Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> wispygalaxy wrote:
>> I've been interested in learning Java recently. I skimmed some books
>> and decided that Java looked alright.
>
> It isn't bad. It is even a very good general-purpose language.
> Especially on linux, where you can count on it being present in a current
> version, it is fine.
That's convenient. Linux distros come with a lot of useful things. And the
distros are still not bloated.
> The problem is that on windows you can be relatively sure that no usable
> java-runtime is present, and you need a big download to install it.
I'm not surprised. When I used Windows, I always had to download extra apps
to do certain things, like unRARing a file.
>> It's used a lot in finance, which I'm
>> majoring in. And my school teaches it extensively in CS classes.
>>
>> Have you tried out Java? Was it too slow for your taste?
>
> It is not slow. Modern Java will compile the code while running it, so the
> next time a function is accessed it will run fast. It will be slow only
> the first time something executes.
> Benchmarks have shown Java to be about as fast as C-apps or CPP apps, when
> they have been compiled on the spot.
> There are Audio- and Video-editors written completely in Java, and they
> are everything but slow
OK, that's a relief to know. :) I'm convinced that Java is a solid
language, and I will go on to learn it. I knew that Java wasn't *very*
slow compared to other languages. I wanted to hear both sides speak about
Java, and I now know that Java is something I should learn.
>> What kind of programming you do?
>
> Java is useable in lots of things.
That is proof that it's useful. :)
|
|
