The introductory programming course at uni teaches Java, but you don't have to take it if you know a programming language. Should I teach myself python over the summer (I already know the basics) and avoid having to learn Java? Or are the haters just people who are scared of object orientation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-04 16:55
>1) If you are so concerned about efficiency you better start coding in C, I think you forget that there is a fucking VM between your code and the CPU. The more ...
Good fucking point faggot. If an app runs on a VM, then fuck it. Nothing needs to very be done efficiently as possible or properly because something else exists that is more efficient.
Your powers of reason are astounding.
>Look up interface in the dictionary.
The restricted Java definition of interface does not cover all aspects of the general OO definition of interface. Look it the fuck up yourself.
>Or nest them, lets see so this C# language hack saves you 5 characters, nice. Exceptions aren't as common as you seem to think they are that this is an issue.
C# doesn't have a fucking language hack, it just doesn't implement checked exceptions the faggy way Java does. Adding a new exception type to a Java class is a version breaking change for callers.
>Who fucking cares? Using interfaces as annotations is rare.
Of course, who the fuck writes Java apps that communicate their data to dissimilar systems by serializing objects, or clone instances with cloneable. That is obviously best left to more modern frameworks.
>They made all C# 1.0 and 1.1 code break.
No they fucking didn't. C# 1.0 and 1.1 just can't call methods with generic parameters. It can certainly use methods that implement generics but don't expose the generic parameter to the caller.
>The only reason they could do this is because nobody actually codes in C#.
Except, last year 50% of medium to large business created new applications on the .Net framework.
>Java generics use less memory than C# and have a small performance hit. k.
No they fucking don't. Multiple instances in Java load multiple duplicate copies of their instructions in to memory. C# only loads the instructions once (as in less) for reference types. Generics in .Net are a performance improvement and a coding improvement. In Java it is a coding improvement at the cost of performance.
>"Multiple Dispatch" lends itself to ugly code.
AHAHAH, no. You don't understand the implications. If the JVM had multiple dispatch, then it could run other real first class languages. Sun has been trying for years to implement this with no success.
>J# was MS's attempt to embrace and extend and extinguish java.
No faggot, that was MSes Java VM. J# was only made to bring Java devs over to .Net so the whiny fags would have minimum trouble adjusting to a slightly different syntax of C#.
Java is great. Despite the enourmous benefit of type-safe function pointers, Sun didn't implement them because it would be "too hard" for programmers. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sub thinks Java devs are fucking stupid children. They might be right for once.