Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Java vs C++

Reply
Thread Tools

Java vs C++

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
the worthwhile parts.

This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
longer that far off C++ in complexity.

Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve
changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward-
compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that
C++ never had to deal with.

Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
In article <iijbfr$pb2$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)_zealand
says...

> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
> Java.


I have always missed generics concept in languages that did not have it, and I
had never worked in C++. )



--
score: 40.59041%
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)-com.hr>, Pitch wrote:

> I have always missed generics concept in languages that did not have it,
> and I had never worked in C++. )


Try Python. Has no generics, and doesn’t need them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Silvio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On 02/05/2011 12:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
> in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
> the worthwhile parts.
>
> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
> longer that far off C++ in complexity.
>
> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve
> changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward-
> compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that
> C++ never had to deal with.
>
> Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...


C++ did not have generics from the beginning. It was added afterwards
and initially without any proper specification of (separate) compilation
and linkage aspects.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
> in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
> the worthwhile parts.
>
> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
> longer that far off C++ in complexity.
>
> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve
> changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward-
> compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that
> C++ never had to deal with.
>
> Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...


Troll alert!

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
>> in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
>> the worthwhile parts.
>>
>> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
>> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
>> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
>> longer that far off C++ in complexity.
>>
>> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
>> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
>> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve
>> changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward-
>> compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that
>> C++ never had to deal with.
>>
>> Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...


Silvio wrote:
> C++ did not have generics from the beginning. It was added afterwards and
> initially without any proper specification of (separate) compilation and
> linkage aspects.


C++ doesn't have generics. It has templates. They aren't the same thing.

C# has generics. Java has (different) generics. C++ doesn't.

Lawrence is trolling.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On 05-02-2011 06:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
> in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
> the worthwhile parts.
>
> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
> longer that far off C++ in complexity.


C++ is a much more complex language than Java.

Complexity is more than the number of pages in the standard.

Java was designed to have well defined behavior for most things. That
requires rather detailed descriptions.

> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with.


C++ had templates before Java got generics. Java generics are obviously
very inspired by C++ templates, but are still different in many ways.

But it is correct that generics added some complexity to Java.

Every addition to a language must be carefully considered whether
the benefits outweigh the added complexity.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On 05-02-2011 07:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<(E-Mail Removed)-com.hr>, Pitch wrote:
>> I have always missed generics concept in languages that did not have it,
>> and I had never worked in C++. )

>
> Try Python. Has no generics, and doesn’t need them.


Generics are not particular useful in dynamic typed
languages.

But since Java is static typed, then not so relevant
for Java.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On 05-02-2011 09:02, Silvio wrote:
> On 02/05/2011 12:15 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
>> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one
>> of the
>> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now
>> they’ve
>> changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be
>> backward-
>> compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications
>> that
>> C++ never had to deal with.
>>
>> Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...

>
> C++ did not have generics from the beginning. It was added afterwards
> and initially without any proper specification of (separate) compilation
> and linkage aspects.


Not from the very beginning.

But it was added to cfront pretty early.

Arne

 
Reply With Quote
 
Owen Jacobson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On 2011-02-05 06:15:07 -0500, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:

> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
> longer that far off C++ in complexity.


This is an extremely dubious measure of complexity. The Common Lisp
specification is over a thousand pages long in some editions*, but Lisp
is generally considered a much simpler language than either C++ or Java.

You've posted extensively about things you see in Java that you don't
like, and there's a strong "C++ is better" undercurrent to your posts.
While I disagree with the undercurrent, I will defend to the death your
right to program in C++ instead. Just, please, go away.

-o

* <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/cltl2.html>, which
predates the ANSI spec.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hot Requirements: 1.Sr Java Developer,2.Java Developer (Java with EJB) Isaac Java 0 01-20-2011 08:41 PM
hey i am just started java,, can anyone tell me the use ,application, why java , importance of java.. manish sahu Java 3 02-14-2008 12:00 AM
[JAVA] [EVALUATION] - The Java Failure (Sorry: The Java(tm) Failure) Ilias Lazaridis Java 0 02-01-2005 10:32 AM
JAVA VIRTUAL MUCHINE OR SUN JAVA Fernando Kohan Firefox 1 11-14-2004 02:04 AM
Job to convert Java App 1.3.1 to Java Newest of Java Michael Kintner Java 0 11-30-2003 04:42 AM



Advertisments