>>15
I agree completely agree that Java is easier to program in than c++ and obviously c. Abstracting away any requirement to deal with pointers/addressing is one reason. Another is that Java is just generally one level of abstraction above c++ with one line/operation/whatever in Java requiring multiple in c++. In general tho good experienced c++ developers will be able to develop like for like just as easily.
This does not stop java from sucking ass. While it has great design in principle in practice it tends to fail. The majority of peoples customers use windows computers, yet from what I have seen Java applications
- do not completely match the look and feel of windows correctly
- do not operate components as a windows user would expects forcing developers to spend a lot of extra time and money programming it to.
- as everyone normally says about Java it runs like a dog compared to c/c++/.net applications.
I am not one of the people who accepts that, due to java’s cross-platform compatible design, it must operate greatly slower/inferior to native applications. .net has an almost equivalent top level design and it looks just like a windows application and runs with a far lower overhead java. I blame Java's sucking on crap VM implementation, stupid library design decisions, total failure to aim to cater for mass market first.