JAVA CONSIDERED HARMFUL

I knew that JAVA was SHIT

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002285.html

JAVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM6v-43-1PU&feature=player_detailpage#t=295s

No problem. I use GNU IcedTea.

>So either you have to check at all times that you have the latest version of Java

No, that's what automatic updates/package managers already do...

I happen to love Java. I believe it could have revolutionized the desktop if it had become the de-facto programming language for software...

>>4
It could have revolutionized the desktop if there was an adequate free software JDK earlier in its life.

Java is shit.

Java is shit.

I have spent 2 days coding in Java, and it's AWFUL.

C# is a much better Java.

Hey >>7, this is for you

http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/scala-for-java-refugees-part-1

Merry Christmas!

>>4,5
It couldn't have ``revolutionized the desktop'', and I seriously don't understand why anyone would think otherwise, unless their only exposure to computing is through Sun press releases.

>>7

you should spend more time with it. Java is very frustrating to use and it will take you longer to write a quick something, but you are less likely to do something stupid that would cripple your massive project and require a rewrite of a bunch of stuff.

>>7
recommends another shitty GC language as a better language
recommends microsoft shit
IHBT

>>9
I'm mostly referring to the free desktop. A lot of projects are written in C, which takes longer to write and has a higher entry level to understand.

For example, look how quickly Banshee (C# I know, but fairly equivalent as a language) stormed past Rhythmbox in terms of features and contributors.

Same story with GIMP vs. Paint.NET - GIMP has arguably a higher profile and more users, but it's extremely difficult to contribute because of the learning curve. It only has a couple of contributors, and there's an age between releases. I'm sure the developers are doing their best, but if they were using a higher level language such as Java or C#, while pretty much speed equivalent to C, you can't help but think it would be much faster.

As someone said, if Java had had a free JDK earlier (or people weren't dubious of Mono's C#) it would have had a higher take up.

>>11
I was not recommending C#. To be honest, i prefer dynamic languages.

But between C# and Java, i'll choose C# anytime.