«

In article <>, Roedy Green < > wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:45:28 GMT, Adie <adie@oh-****.com> wrote,
>quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>I'd hope that some of our guys understand GC... but i'll make sure
>
>What is your purpose in life, to be human mosquito?
>
>See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/gc.html

A lot of PMs are indeed pests.

But if their servers need to be bounced that often, something isn't right.

Eric

Well...
i use oracle jdeveloper...and often the IDE CRASCH!!!
i've got a good pc (750 Mb of RAM) and it's not enough!
i used visual studio for .NEW web application, it is more confortable!



stefanomnn ha scritto:

> hi, i'd like to have a good IDE for java, wich support j2ee...but i''d
> like this IDE not to be written in java!
> any one can help me?

Luc The Perverse wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
> > google "java is slow" 21,200 results
> > google "java is fast" 1,100 results
> >
> > this is all common experience. Maybe Java has improved, but I can be
> > excused for being skeptical!
>
> Results 1 - 100 of about 8,770,000 for java is slow. (0.34 seconds)
>
> Results 1 - 100 of about 30,600,000 for java is fast. (0.21 seconds)
>
> ???
>

very good. Now try adding quotation marks

"java is slow" 16,000
"java is fast" 1,100

Obviously look at the results too, so you know you're not
misinterpreting the results.
Your experiment was intentionally misleading. Without quotation marks
you'll get articles that discuss how to make java faster, and think
they are saying java is fast.


By the way. It is possible that since Version 1.5, java is fast.

By the way. I never said thisi s conclusive. only a guide


> about 61,800,000 for cancer is good. (0.54 seconds)
>
> about 23,600,000 for cancer is bad. (0.13 seconds)
>
> --

Neither of those are the kind of statements one would expect in a
sensible article.

Look at the results and then attempt a quick evaluation of the nature
of the articles. What they are actually saying, and if they are,
whether all the aricles that appear in the first 10 were written by
quacks.
whether they are making a controversial statement - which they
obviously are.

You have to use your intelligence, when looking at results.

Roedy Green wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 06:14:26 -0800, wrote, quoted
> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >oh no, the java police. and they call names too. .
>
> Shut up you asshole. Do an experiment. That would be interesting.
> Your idiotic ramblings based on nothing but reading propaganda are
> worthless.
>
> --

I can see that you're very protective of your beloved java, and you
feel that I've violated her.
On the day that I violated the virginity of java, I didn't intend to
run off, and I didn't know she was your beloved either. I'm glad that
you're willing to share her, but i'm not into that sort of thing. It's
not that I don't find her attractive, she has quite a nice body(this is
well known), but there are a few aspects to her that I found
infuriating. I couldn't bear living with her anymore.
Rest assured, I didn't intend to upset her, things just didn't work out
between us.

I wish you the best of luck together