Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Java tops C as most popular language in developer index

Reply
Thread Tools

Java tops C as most popular language in developer index

 
 
Phil Carmody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2013
James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 08/19/2013 04:50 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> ...
> > Javascript was originally designed for adding a few trivial interactive
> > features to html. It blossomed, with people producing libraries like
> > JQuery which are huge hunks of code.
> > However we're not yet at the stage where most people do heavy-duty
> > processing with Javascript. Whilst there might be lots of lines of
> > code, generally they're processing strings or putting up UI elements,
> > which a modern processor can slice through easily. They're not doing
> > high end graphics, signals processing, NP-complete problems, or other
> > things that soak up the cycles.

>
> I guarantee you that, if you're right that people are not doing those
> things with Javascript, it's probably only because they think it's not
> suited to such uses - it's not because there's no one who would want to.


I suspect the reason Malcolm dropped into my killfile was the inordinate
amount of *******s he comes up with, and this is a good example. Just
find a modern HTML5-based phone, and look at the source code of some of
the web-apps. In particular look for ones that are quick ports of pre-
HTML5 apps.

Why do you think that so much effort has been put into optimising
Javascript interpreters/compilers in the last half-decade? It's because
people are doing stupid amounts (and that's not "stupid" being used
for emphasis, it's "stupid" as in "stupid") of computational heavy
lifting in JavaScript. All the JIT work has been absolutely necessary.

Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2013
Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Just remembered that Google is trying to replace
> Javscript with Dart:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%2...ng_language%29


See also asm.js
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asm.js
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ion-of-asm-js/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2013
Malcolm McLean wrote:

> However we're not yet at the stage where most people do heavy-duty
> processing with Javascript. Whilst there might be lots of lines of
> code, generally they're processing strings or putting up UI elements,
> which a modern processor can slice through easily. They're not doing
> high end graphics, signals processing, NP-complete problems, or other
> things that soak up the cycles.


Is that a fact?

http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demos

cf.
http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demo/1451
http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demo/1459

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lynn McGuire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2013
On 8/19/2013 4:43 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:16:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/2013 12:56 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:45:04 -0500, Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/18/2013 10:40 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>> Robert Wessel wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 Aug 2013 20:48:21 GMT, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if the Java gets turned into JavaScript, which is interpreted
>>>>>>> by a browser .... I wouldn't know about that[*]. But I'm fairly
>>>>>>> sure actual Java is not the performance disaster it was early on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Java doesn't get turned into JavaScript - they're two very different
>>>>>> languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> From an earlier post by Lynn:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fat Browser clients, such as google apps (gmail),
>>>>> are written in Java and compiled down to Javascript."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Please see http://www.gwtproject.org/ to
>>>> understand how Google apps, specifically gmail,
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>> "The GWT SDK contains the Java API libraries,
>>>> compiler, and development server. It lets you
>>>> write client-side applications in Java and deploy
>>>> them as JavaScript."
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. Did not know that.
>>>
>>> But I guess if the only hammer you have is JavaScript...
>>>
>>> I guess this does explain the broad interest in JITs for JavaScript,
>>> though. I never did quite understand that, since almost all examples
>>> of JavaScript I've seen have been relatively small - sure, it would
>>> help even then, but it didn't really seem like it would be that big a
>>> win.

>>
>> Just remembered that Google is trying to replace
>> Javscript with Dart:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%2...ng_language%29
>>
>> Here is the Javascript for Gmail (you will need
>> to view the page source to see it):
>>
>> https://mail.google.com/_/mail-stati...KGKgHs4GQg/d=1
>>
>> I would not call that a trivial amount of code.

>
>
> No, clearly not (although that was my point: with something like a
> Java program compiled to JavaScript you'd likely end up with
> non-trivial codebases).
>
> But.... Yikes... Gotta love generated code...


That is obfuscated code.

Lynn


 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2013
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:56:08 AM UTC+1, Noob wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> > However we're not yet at the stage where most people do heavy-duty
> > processing with Javascript. Whilst there might be lots of lines of
> > code, generally they're processing strings or putting up UI elements,
> > which a modern processor can slice through easily. They're not doing
> > high end graphics, signals processing, NP-complete problems, or other
> > things that soak up the cycles.

>
> Is that a fact?
>
> http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demos
>
> cf.
>
> http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demo/1451
> http://js1k.com/2013-spring/demo/1459
>

Those are 1980s style little procedural graphics routines, remarkably written
in less than 1K of Javascript. They are very clever, but most of them aren't
especially processor intensive. Life for example requires only 8 additions and
a coupe of comparisons per cell per step.
Most of cycles will be spent in rasterising. Whilst it's possible to write
rasterising code in Javascript, typically this isn't done. Javascript calls
graphics routines that are written in another language, typically C.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Carmody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2013
Robert Wessel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 20 Aug 2013 11:49:25 +0300, Phil Carmody
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >> Here is the Javascript for Gmail (you will need
> >> to view the page source to see it):
> >> https://mail.google.com/_/mail-stati...KGKgHs4GQg/d=1
> >>
> >> I would not call that a trivial amount of code.


> Something seems to have mangled the URL for you somewhere along the


Bloody emacs!

> way. About 33 characters from the end, your copies have an inserted
> "%5C". Lynn's original worked for me (although I just copied it and
> pasted it into Chrome).


Oh my god, that's awesome. The best thing is that it doesn't seem to be
uglified (obfuscated), just minified. So in theory it could be returned
to a fairly readable form quite easily. But that's a heck of a lot of
javascript. I wonder how much of it does client-side validation that
needs to be (but isn't necessarily) done at the server too?

Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Carmody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2013
Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 8/19/2013 4:43 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:16:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> https://mail.google.com/_/mail-stati...KGKgHs4GQg/d=1


> > But.... Yikes... Gotta love generated code...


> That is obfuscated code.


It only looks minified to me, not obfuscated. Sure, minimal-length
variable and functions names are a trivial obfuscation, but that's
not the primary goal, simply shrinking the source is.

Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lynn McGuire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2013
On 8/22/2013 6:46 AM, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Robert Wessel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> On 20 Aug 2013 11:49:25 +0300, Phil Carmody
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Here is the Javascript for Gmail (you will need
>>>> to view the page source to see it):
>>>> https://mail.google.com/_/mail-stati...KGKgHs4GQg/d=1
>>>>
>>>> I would not call that a trivial amount of code.

>
>> Something seems to have mangled the URL for you somewhere along the

>
> Bloody emacs!
>
>> way. About 33 characters from the end, your copies have an inserted
>> "%5C". Lynn's original worked for me (although I just copied it and
>> pasted it into Chrome).

>
> Oh my god, that's awesome. The best thing is that it doesn't seem to be
> uglified (obfuscated), just minified. So in theory it could be returned
> to a fairly readable form quite easily. But that's a heck of a lot of
> javascript. I wonder how much of it does client-side validation that
> needs to be (but isn't necessarily) done at the server too?
>
> Phil


I'm betting that most of it is user
interface code, probably GWT.

Lynn


 
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
Firefox tops list of 12 most vulnerable apps Box750 Computer Security 3 12-17-2008 06:02 PM
What is the most popular java framework for web applications ? tomjbr.56770318@bloglines.com Java 4 03-02-2008 03:02 PM
Most popular program written in Java Michele 'xjp' Java 12 08-20-2007 08:38 PM
Python is the best and most popular general purpose scripting language; the universal scripting language Ron Stephens Python 23 04-12-2004 05:32 PM
Which JAVA programming certification is most popular with Employers?? msWebGeek MCSD 2 09-01-2003 09:25 PM



Advertisments