On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:54:04 -0500, Mark Shroyer wrote:

>  On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:38:21 +0000, Phlip wrote:
>  
> > Java is hostile to both the CPU and the programmer. Hence, the user
> > suffers too.
>  
>  Being reasonably experienced in developing both C++ and Java applications,
>  I would suggest that a modern JVM is not slow by any means:
>  
>  http://www.kano.net/javabench/data
>  
> > You will never miss anything (except lots of entry-level jobs that
> > nobody should want) if you avoid Java like the plague, and stick with
> > languages that are technically superior. Put another way, the simple
> > motivation of having a boss order you to use Java is not good enough.
> > The motivation itself will not magically make Java more productive. It
> > will slow you down. Some people work by the hour, so that's okay for
> > them. If you want to be rewarded for productivity, go with the most
> > technically advanced system you can.
>  
>  Ruby is great; I clearly wouldn't be on this newsgroup if I thought
>  otherwise. However, at this point in time Java is far more mature,
>  performs better, and enjoys a much greater market penetration than Ruby,
>  meaning that your Java skills, should you choose to develop them, could
>  prove the more useful.
>  
>  I agree with Philip in that you should "learn to learn languages"; that's
>  the advice of a seasoned software engineer. But what I would add to that
>  is that since Java borrows so much from C++ (and is borrowed even more
>  heavily from in C#), learning to "think in Java" is an especially good
>  starting point from which to proceed to other languages. That might be
>  something worth keeping in mind, especially if you think that you might do
>  work on .NET some day.
>  
>  There certainly are flaws in Java, particularly in the language itself.
>  Many tasks must be approached with an unnecessary verbosity of code:
>  launching a new thread, for example, requires more writing than it should.
>  I get the feeling that Gosling et. al. originally intended this very
>  explicit syntax in order to make the exact behavior of the code more
>  apparent to the programmer (a decision which may have contributed to
>  Java's popularity in academic circles). However, when comparing Java to
>  its extremely similar - yet more concise - counterpart, C#, it is clear
>  which approach is more appropriate from the standpoint of a pragmatic
>  software developer. Java began to add some much-needed syntactic sugar in
>  Java 5, and I would expect to see further improvements in this area in
>  upcoming relases.
>  
>  All things considered, the Java environment (and the vast ecosystem that
>  has grown up around it) is quite powerful. Coupled with the close
>  ideological relationship that the Java language shares with other popular
>  programming languages, I would think this makes Java very much worth your
>  consideration.
>  
>  Good luck,
>  Mark
> 

u make a good case. tx.