Re: Da Vinci Machine Project

["Javier Guerra" <javier@...>]

On 2/10/08, Matthew Paul Del Buono <delbu9c1@erau.edu> wrote:
> As much as I absolutely HATE Java, I have to disagree with you on several points.

i too deeply hate Java, and disagree with most points that Matthew
feels are positive (IMNSHO it's ease of use is pure marketing, and
javachips aren't relevant when even embedded processors are powerful
enough for real JVMs)

but certainly speed is no longer an issue with any well-designed and
deployed Java app. it's JVMs are highly optimized and it's JITs are
really amazing. (not so amazing as Mike's jobs, of course... but there
are lots of bright people working on them)

the language is, of course awful, and i personally find that it's
supposedly good points (GC, managed code, standard library) are too
little and too ugly to make it any better or faster/easier programming
than C++.

what i feel are good points:

- its success made several technologies mainstream, creating a good
environment in which less-static languages could be considered (JVM,
GC)

- the JVM can be deployed on almost any platform, again validating the
idea that portable code is possible.  in fact, if it wasn't for
microsoft, it would already be everywhere, no need to install it!

i was tempted to enumerate some bad points.... but why? let's just
state that i too hate java, but it's JVM is really good.  in fact,
it's only real shortcoming is how inadequate it is for any other
language.

this DaVinci project could be the best thing to happen to Java since a long time

-- 
Javier