Popularity with the general public and quality aren't strongly correlated, news at 11.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-30 17:15
>>1
Feel free to use Java as much as you like. But do look beyond your borders. Learn another language that is different from Java, even if you don't intend to use it in any serious project. Try ML, Haskell or Scheme.
>>31 Enjoy learning Mandarin, bitches.
Actually China will be done for too. Since people around the world won't afford their cheap junk anymore with their heavily devalued currencies.
Getting back on the actual subject (Madness, I know) Java has serious applications like e.g. portable code. People should just, you know, stop doing heavy-duty work in the language. If a business asked me to code, say, an interface to their inventory for them to use on their salespeoples computers, I'd probably use Java to give the salespeople wider lattitude in what models of computers they use. If I was to code a heavy duty FPGA synthesis program (watch me go again) I'd shoot the first bastard who suggested Java. XILINX I'm looking at you, fuckface.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-01 6:18
>>40
Don't forget stuff like SIM cards and credit cards. Those little chips run Java bytecode, because why the fuck not?
It's a subset, but the list of absent features is fairly short.
There's no reason to use C for something that is not even close to realtime or in any other way performance-hungry. If anything, using bytecode-compiled language would probably produce smaller code, which is much more important in the circumstances.
Being crossplatform (across different SIM cards and credit chips) helps too, I guess. In fact in this kind of applications you want to be as isolated from hardware as possible (which is unusual for embedded in general), and totally don't want to deal with hardware-specific bugs when you were not sufficiently isolated. Oh, and when there's a possibility to put in additional modules from different manufacturers, you don't ever ever ever want to deal with the bugs that arise from the interaction between them.
>>44 There's no reason to use C for something that is not even close to realtime or in any other way performance-hungry.
This is exactly why I use Scheme.
>>1
because Java rode in on the hype of OOP and GC, so Sun promised that Java would change the world. PROTIP: it didn't.
>>44 If anything, using bytecode-compiled language would probably produce smaller code, which is much more important in the circumstances.
smaller than x86 maybe, but ARM machine code is extremely dense. i highly doubt equivalent java bytecode would be smaller
>>57
Is it? I thought ARM assembler was the hip one.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-03 21:20
I've just recently been working with a Cortex M3 and it's... "ok" is what I wanna say. Wrote in C, btw, because I don't hate myself. Trying to get Java on that would be like pulling teeth