Popular @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
NetBeans 6: Matisse Updates
NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
Introduction to Groovy Part 3
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Easier Custom Components with Swing Fuse
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Benchmark Analysis: Guice vs Spring
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
Replies:
26 -
Pages:
2
[
Previous |
1
2
]
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
» Dieselpoint, Inc seeks a Senior Solution Engineer - Enterprise Search in Chicago, IL 60661 » DZone, Inc. seeks a DZone Developer Intern in Cary, NC » Genuitec seeks a Eclipse plugin developers in Dallas, Texas
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
Looking at their list of books published in 07, I see 7 Java books (not sure how Ajax on Rails is counted in there though), 2 C# books , 1 C/C++ book , 2 Python books , 10 Ruby books , 1 PHP book , 3 Perl books , and 0 VB books .So in the past year, of the languages I looked at it was second to Ruby. I don't think that means they have given up on Java, more likely its just been a slow year for programming language books for these languages. Which shouldn't be too surprising, considering how many existing books there are out there. Why write something new when we still have plenty out there to read?
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> I want to ask just one question, If O'reilly doesnt> like Java anymore what they like now? Dont tell me C#
> is the samething as Java, C++ thats going backwards,
> The only options I see is Python or Ruby but really
> for me are not real languages are just scripting
> languages, what else we have on IT around the world
> that we could use to develop robust, enterprise
> applications?. There is nothing that is not good
> right now. I just see Java and Java will be for
> sometime to come. Universities, collages, High
> schools teach Java all around the globe, almost all
> new enterprise applications use Java, The best
> frameworks and libraries are with Java right now,
> O'reilly could be very stupid not to work anymore
> with Java. We dont need hype that let to the fashion
> we need robust, scientific, pragmactic and business
> tools to develop great enterprise applications and
> that is with Java.
That depends what domain your talking about. Erlang/OTP for instance is being used for some fairly serious systems:
http://www.erlang.org/faq/faq.html#AEN50
As is Python:
http://www.python.org/about/success/
Even now there some serious hot topics in language development such as concurrency. Throwing on a quick library onto Java is not going to solve this very interesting problem. Even now Java goes through some growing of it's own (read on the closures debate).
As far as seeing C++ as going backwards, they (O'Reiley) could be talking a bit about the future of C++0x which certainly is not moving backwards.
I guess ultimately I must ask:
Who says O'Reiley only makes books on Enterprise software development?
Java looks like a very solid player but why is it that some feel it is the only player?
You will really set yourself up better for the future by keeping an open mind to this all. I really like the development efforts going on out there, but lets not subject O'Reily into our personal language wars.
I've tried to keep my bias out of this, I do hope it came across as such. All I really want to convey is people should open up to new ideas, it will keep you competitive for the future. Imagine if doctors decided they are tired of learning new concepts.
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
In their defense, they have been a great supporter of our JUG (and many others I'm sure), as they have sent us plenty of free books for giveaways, and are glad to provide review copies of books to JUG members when asked.Cheers,
Jim
Technical Architect, ROME Corporation
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> Let's see> > - GWT: A Developer's Notebook
> Syntax similar to Java but library mostly different
> and compiles to Javascript
Syntax identical to Java, JRE library a subset of Java. Code targeted at this CLDC/CDC-like library runs anywhere, as I have an application which runs in Swing or Servlet environments, Android, and Javascript.
I use my standard Java toolchain. I author with IntelliJ IDEA, compile with javac and debug with my IDEA debugger. The Javascript compilation happens when I deploy to a browser environment, and is not much different from doing embedded Java. During development in hosted mode, GWT code runs as bytecode within the JVM.
> > - Android: A Developer's Notebook
> Syntax similar to Java but library mostly different
> and compiles to something else
Syntax identical to Java. Library most J2SE minus AWT/Swing.
To say that Android or GWT aren't Java is absurd. It's like saying a Spring programmer isn't using Java if he avoids official JCP classes or that using C/C++ without ANSI libraries is "not C" What matters is that someone who has learned or understands the Java syntax, and is familiar with the standard Java environments and tool chains, can get up and running fast on Android and GWT It's a smaller learning curve.
You'd think that Java zealots would be celebrating one of the world's largest and most technically advanced companies using the Java language for all of their new products and platforms, but no, they'd rather labor under the delusion that the world would be a better place if everyone used MIDlets and Applets for phone and browser apps.
In a world where people are abandoning the Java language to do AJAX/Web2.0 apps, you'd think they'd be celebrating a Java solution that can generate compact super-optimized code which runs on the client. Perhaps they'd rather Microsoft Volta, or Rails + Dojo/ExtJs/YUI/jQuery?
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
The GWT compiler does not compile an identical language to 1.4 Java, just something quite similar: http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/documentation/com.google.gwt.doc.DeveloperGuide.Fundamentals.html#LanguageSupporti.e. most of the advanced functionality in the Java language is silently dropped on the floor, as it is too hard to support on the target platform.
The Android compiler also obviously will barf on anything that goes beyond its target library: http://amazing-development.com/archives/2007/12/14/jruby-on-android/
That doesn't mean that they aren't good enough solutions for what they are supposed to do, but pitching them as identical to Java is overselling them.
GNU Classpath - Core Libraries
IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/#classpath | irc://irc.freenode.org/#kaffe
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
GWT does compile 1.4 source, it just can't ensure semantics of math work perfectly (with longs) and Javascript isn't multithreaded so synchronized is a no-op.I've got 15,000 lines of *numerically heavily* Java code that cross-compile and run between J2SE, GWT, and Android, and I inspect the guts of the GWT compiler every day, so I am very aware of what it does and what it can do. And what I said is correct: GWT compiles syntax that is identical to Java. It uses the Eclipse JDT compiler front end, there is no divergence in the grammar. (as of GWT 1.5 trunk, it handles Tiger features too: enums, generics, annotations, autoboxing, for-loop, etc)
Library support runtime != syntax.
Why does JavaCard, CLDC, et al, get to be called "Java" when they support even fewer Java language features (and won't even parse 1.4 syntax), but GWT can't?
Sun's marketing pitch used to be that Java scales from smart cards to enterprise servers and in that pitch, they were not talking about the runtime library, which in fact, is fragmented across platforms. Instead, they were talking about the Java syntax, and how Java code, properly written, can be reused in multiple contexts, which is exactly what GWT delivers.
I'm pretty sure that even if GWT emitted code to emulate 64-bit longs (which it could do, by using a Javascript object that holds two ints), people would still be saying "It's not Java"
I personally find this line of thinking valueless. Does it have the same syntax as Java? Yes. Can I use my Java tools? Yep, IDE, Ant, Maven, Javadoc, Debugger, JUnit, etc everything is there. Can I reuse code I wrote between J2SE and GWT? Yep.
At this point, I could care less what it's called. (I suspect Google doesn't either, and would not call it the "Java Web Toolkit" even if the could) Same goes for Android. What it allows me to do is what matters.
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
Me thinks not... Java Power Tools , at least, is being published by O'Reilly early next year (see http://www.javapowertools.com/).Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> Why does JavaCard, CLDC, et al, get to be called> "Java" when they support even fewer Java language
> features (and won't even parse 1.4 syntax), but GWT
> can't?
Because they meet the requirements for something that gets to be called Java. That doesn't mean they are necessarily more or less useful as something else that does not meet such a definition. The definitions are set by Google, Sun & friends inside the JCP.
> I'm pretty sure that even if GWT emitted code to
> emulate 64-bit longs (which it could do, by using a
> Javascript object that holds two ints), people would
> still be saying "It's not Java"
It doesn't matter what people say. It matters how faithfully the compiler implements support for the Java programming language. The usual way to determine that is to run a bunch of compiler test suites on the compiler.
One can also look at the code, see that it doesn't implement required features of the language spec, and save oneself the time spent running test suites as it can't be a Java compiler if it only faithfully implements a significant part of the language. The language spec doesn't let you pick and chose which parts of it you get to support in your compiler.
> At this point, I could care less what it's called. (I
> suspect Google doesn't either, and would not call it
> the "Java Web Toolkit" even if the could) Same goes
> for Android. What it allows me to do is what matters.
That's the whole point, and the reason why trying to attach labels like 'Java' to technologies that aren't is futile. The label itself has no value, the value is in the technology.
GNU Classpath - Core Libraries
IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/#classpath | irc://irc.freenode.org/#kaffe
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
I like the O'Reilly books too.Maybe the new technologies of java only has small readers. A publisher must conside the profit.Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> Like many IT enthusiasts and/or professionals, I am a> big fan of O'Reilly books. However, this publisher
> doesn't seem to on the bleeding edge when it comes to
> Java.
I think most of the good books on Java and related technologies are already written. As for the aforementioned APIs, maybe they just don't need separate books? I'd say, a good API doesn't need a book!
Regards,
Parabuild: Software build and release management system in 5 minutes.
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> Pardon my ignorance, I know what's GWT. But what is> GTW? Haven't heard anything like that.
>
> Is it just a typo?
Meera,
You guessed it so right - GTW is just a typo. It has been corrected in the original post.
I agree with Matt's views overall.
Re: Has O'Reilly given up on Java?
> Well O'Reilly really does more buttom-up/grassroots> stuff. Java is the opposite; old, clunky and dragging an
> enormous legacy tail which is causing all kind of
> trouble. To many, Java is very 90's and I guess O'Reilly
> seems to think so too. No big deal, just buy your books
> from other publishing houses, O'Reilly is free to make
> their own judgments. *Shrugs*
Come on guy, you missed the point, this discussion it is *not* about if you like the java platform, the all point is about a group of readers that really like to read o'reilly books and we are still waiting for new books in our preffered series like Head First. (yes, I'm also waiting for an Head First JSF book and the SCWCD upgrade thanks)
So come on, go away and start a new thread about how java (in your specific and particular point of view) stinks. (duh)