[FUGSPBR] [OT] Java!? Prq?...

[DaemonX]

 From: "Michael F Brinkman" <brinkma1 em pilot.msu.edu>

O.K., I think I need to clear some things up here.

Let me give you some background on my experience. I'm currently studying
computer science in college. In that time, I've had 3 C++ courses 
dealing with
programming, algorithms and data structures (2  using Solaris/GNU, 1 
using
WinNT/VC++), and one course on Sparc assembly language & C.

I've also had courses where I've had to learn VB (stand alone and for 
Excel),
Matlab, and Lingo for Director. Finally, I've done an independent study 
in
programming Java, focus being on whether Java or C++ should be the first
language a person learns. Although I like Java better, I said it would 
be far
easier to learn a language like Java after having learned C++ first 
because of
concepts like pointers and memory management.

I'm not looking for an "Atta boy!" or anything like that, because I'm 
sure my
experience is far below most on the list. The point is I'm not unable or 
afraid
to learn new programming languages. My concern was over the fact that 
Apple
chose a language which seems to only be used for OS X (and that Elbonian
Database Product :-), and that info available on the subject is very 
sparse,
especially when compared to other languages like C++ or Java.

I don't have a problem trying to learn Objective C or Cocoa's API's. 
That's
what I want to do. That's why I bought "Learning Cocoa". But even 
there, I
didn't feel like I was getting enough info on  Objective C.  In short, 
here's
my list of concerns:

- I've got this book here that's supposed to tell me how to program for 
OS X,
but doesn't really teach me the language it's using.
- There aren't many good sources of information for Objective C.
- Apple says that Mac OS X is the best platform to develop with Java on.
- There is a wealth of information available both in books and on the 
internet
about Java.

That is why I wish "Learning Cocoa" had focused on Java instead of 
Objective C.
That way if "Learning Cocoa" was only trying to show how to interface 
with the
APIs using a programming language, no big deal. There's plenty of other 
info
available for Java that everybody could use.

Maybe I'm unique in that I can't just sit down and learn a programming 
language
in a day. I've read two Java books and only now am I starting to feel
comfortable programming with it. I'm starting on my third now. I'm not 
the
quickest learner, but I am fairly committed.

I guess what it all boils down to though is that Apple would have done
themselves a big favor if it had released a Java-centric book 
(regardless of
the merits of Objective C) because Java is so ubiquitous. They would 
have made
me and many others in the Mac programming community much happier too as 
I can
see from several of the comments on this list.

Sorry for the long rant, but I felt I needed to explain my concerns and 
clarify
what I didn't say in my first post. I'll try to stick to programming 
issues in
the future.


> From: "Harry Keller" <harry em paracompusa.com>
>
> I'm not learning C#, Objective C, or any of these other languages simply
> because I believe in single source and my market is roughly 50:50 
> PC/Mac.
> That said, I'd like to remind people of the computer language situation 
> in
> the 60s.  There were FORTRAN and COBOL.  Then, suddenly lots of other
> languages appeared.  Remember Algol, APL, Simula, LISP, SNOBOL, PL/I, 
> etc.
> The list was very long.  How many of these are in use today?  Yet, each 
> had
> its fanatical supporters.
>
> Still, these were not wasted.  They were important tests of new ideas in
> programming languages.  Until the Y2K crisis, you could still find lots 
> of
> FORTRAN and COBOL around.  You probably still can; I haven't looked.
>
> The language that is used will be the one available for the target 
> platforms
> with the most expertise available that is most appropriate to the 
> task -- in
> that order.  The language that should be used is the one with the least
> product lifetime costs, assuming that the products are equally 
> successful
> independent of language selection.  The bulk of software costs is
> maintenance: bug fixes and enhancements.
>
> Having programmed professionally in every "major" language since 
> FORTRAN II,
> I can say that Java wins easily over C++ and C in development time and
> clarity of resulting code.  The latter only because its a bit harder to
> obfuscate than the others.  Java is rapidly becoming the "FORTRAN" or
> "COBOL" of today in terms of market presence.  I expect that in 10 or 20
> years or so, it will be the "FORTRAN" of the past and will have been
> supplanted by something much better.
>
> The purpose of this discussion group should be discussing Java and 
> issues
> related to Macintosh development.  This entire thread (including my
> contribution) has devolved away from that purpose.  If, like I, you are
> looking for cross-platform, single-source solutions, take Java, whether 
> you
> love it or not.  Please, don't even think of C#.
>
> My apologies to the list for this digression.  I just wish some 
> perspective.
----
Para sair da lista envie um e-mail para majordomo em fugspbr.org
com as palavras "unsubscribe fugspbr" no corpo da mensagem.