Talk:Java (programming language)

Editing Talk

Some users edit the wiki without addressing the comments in the Talk section.

Some of us prefer communicating via edit summaries when the issue is thought to be quite clear-cut. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you quit reverting it the article would get better, but I would suspect that you prefer the article to be worse, which is why you don't try to edit yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.56 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sun Bias

Can we conclude that anything written about Sun about Java is non-neutral point of view? Such as the FreeTTS article and goals of the system. Specifically as it pertains to performance comparisons. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)done

About the goals, the citation is clearly presented as a citation from Sun (even up to quoting the sentences), so the citation within this context is neutral IMHO. About FreeTTS, please make remarks in the appropriate article. And also you should add new sections at the end of the page, not in the middle. Hervegirod (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

see next comment response.

Did you read the FreeTTS research paper? It's a fairly classic application-performance-improvement study that simply shows that some Java applications can be made to run faster than some similar C and C++ applications. It's well backed up with measurements and descriptions of changes. All in all, a pretty straightforward respectable paper. Not an "article", or a marketing brochure, and worthy of respect. RossPatterson (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't know how many times I have to say this, and they didn't mention what priority mode it was in. You can't compare Java in high priority mode to C in normal priority. This is why this paper and just about everyting coming from Sun is biased, with respect to performance. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)done

might I also add that the FreeTTS was only tested on Solaris. I mean really Sun not biased about their own product.128.206.82.56 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)done

If you find reliable sources which say this, I have no problem with that, but for now, your opinion (though respectable in itself) looks to me as WP:OR and thus should not be put in the article. Hervegirod (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what the article said. Tested on Solaris. I have no idea if there is a good Solaris compiler. I know for intel platforms, you can get an icc compiler that is much faster than GCC(maybe 100% to 200%), and there are extensive tests in Windows and Linux that these compilers are indeed faster than GCC. Of course you can't compare Java compilers to ICC compilers, because ICC doesn't work on Solaris, and Java hasn't been optimized for intel. NOt to mention being shipped in high priority. So maybe the statement should be that Sun's Java code is faster than Sun's C code. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)done

static / AOT compilation

What is the following sentence meant to say?

AOT could give Java something close to native performance, yet it is still not portable since there are no compiler directives, and all the pointers are indirect with no way to micro manage garbage collection.

This seems like total gibberish to me. The "lack of compiler directives" is unclear as to its meaning, and I can't imagine what the author of this phrase meant to imply with regards to being 'not portable'. Also, the text about 'pointers are indirect with no way to micro manage garbage collection' seems to have nothing to do with either portability or performance.

I'd suggest this entire (long) sentence be struck. Jonabbey (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that this talk page isn't currently very active, I went ahead and struck the sentence. Jonabbey (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't watched it for a while so I undid it. Compiler directives are how programmers make a program compile on different platforms, that have incompatible operating systems, if you have ever tried to use jni you know what I mean. Garbage collection accounts for a majority of the over head in the language, and objects/pointers or indirection are what slow down programs again if you have ever used jni you know what I mean. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)done

I understand what compiler directives are.. I've been programming for 30 years, in Java for 14. What I meant was, what does it matter whether there are compiler directives, when the Java code is itself written to an abstract machine? It can be left to the AOT compiler to compile and optimize the code for a specific architecture. Such compilers can of course feature whatever compiler directives they like. This doesn't make the code less portable. As to garbage collection, modern JVMs actually achieve superb memory management performance.. easily superior to a naive malloc/free implementation for many purposes. Other things you cite such as object orientation, virtual methods, the ubiquitous use of immutable Strings (thereby necessitating lots of intermediate String object construction for _many_ common operations) do have performance implications. Bounds and exception checking can do also. But that's what makes Java code as reliable as it is. Jonabbey (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Garabage still has to check for dead objects. This an inherent problem in the language it self and has nothing to do with the implementation. IE AOT compilation won't do anything to improve this. The lack of compiler directives are again a fault of the language. If I can't sysexec or load a library then Java is useless because there is so much really good code written cross platform style out there that I will never be able to use in Java. JNI can do it, but again it has no compiler directives so no cross platform for that code... Lame. Slow torpid boring java, like stale coffee. Besides with Chromium, you can run C++ in a sandboxed environment so there is no benefit to Java anymore, except the language was bought by Oracle and is currently under anti-trust review. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)done

You obviously have extremely strong feelings about this. You also seem to be confusing Java (programming language) with Java (software platform). You also are completely disregarding everything about Java other than its performance and ability to use C/C++ libraries. If that's your primary concern, why not stick to C/C++? I'm sure those wiki pages could benefit from your expertise. Jonabbey (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because developers seldom make choices about the adoption of software technologies, and I wouldn't want some potential CEO to be misinformed with all this nonsense about cross platform and similar performance. But mostly I wouldn't want java developers to have the same pay scale as C/C++ programmers for making obviously infereior programs. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)done

BTW I don't have to run java to know it is slower, all I have to do is read code for the libraries written in C and C++ to tell that it is slower. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)done

WP:POV + WP:OR Hervegirod (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hervegirod, read the libraries. They were written in were C, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.56 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

javax

I find it a bit strange that 'javax' redirects in this article, but it doesn't get explained inside the article at all. It would probably make sense to either at least mention it in the article, or make it's own article. 132.216.86.172 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficult for Non-Computer Science Reader

Coudl something be added to this article that would make it clear to a non-expert reader what the importance of Java is? --Girl2k 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut down on the unnecessary geekishness just now. Once the article is shorter and has more focus I'll try to add a section about Java's applications and how its use has affected the computing world. Chris Cunningham 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea of adding a section concerning use of Java, but I'm concerned about the general difficulty of the main article for a non-computer science reader. The point of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to create articles for common folks who have, let's say, graduated high school. This article is opaque to me and I have a liberal arts MA. The article assumes far too much about my prior knowledge. Trying to understand the definitions doesn't work because the linked terms simply hyper me over to other, similarly difficult articles. The article (and many others) would benefit from a knowledgeable person adding simple metaphors. For example, is a library a toolbox and each class is a tool? Also, defining each term separately, rather than tossing six terms in a sentence would be great. Thanks. BeholdMan (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess with enough education you can convince people that white is black, but they would just get hit at the next zebra crossing. done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially Java was a marketing scheme by Sun microsystems to get businesses using their stuff. They developed a poorly thought out language, and sold the hell out of it to businsesses as an "enterprise"[1] "solution". When it was first released there were claims made that java code could be written by less skilled programmers (You can hire stupid people now!), similar to the Cobol programming language in the 60's and 70's. This of course was a disaster, resulting in poorly designed software written by people without the fundamental understanding of the problems they were trying to solve. In the end java exists entirely to soak up IT budgets and keep IT consultants' families fed. Microsoft's .NET technologies were Microsoft's attempt to counter Java. All the same criticisms apply to it. Except that it's 10 years late to the party.

"enterprise" of course means it's very expensive, slow to work in and you'll need to hire lots of consultants. And at the end of it your competition will still run rings around your using something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.49.1 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating

How come that this article gets only a "Mid" importance rating, when APL (sic!) gets a "High" rating?? I can only laugh on that. While APL is nothing more than an object of ridicule nowadays, Java is one of the most important - if not THE most important - enterprise software development platforms today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.109.173 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Or it's not the most important enterprise software development platform today. It really depends on who you're talking to. You might make an argument for most /popular/ but if you're going to do that, include some statistics, thanks.137.48.130.200 17:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

@80: Even C++ has mid-importance in the Computer Science WikiProject. For Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming languages evaluation, this article should have high importance; in terms of Computer Science; I'm not so sure. If you think that APL should also be rated as mid-importance, or that all major programming languages should be high-importance, please effect that change (ideally with discussion first here). Evaluation of importance is specific to a WikiProject's need to prioritize improving certain articles, and is a tool, not a description to help or hurt its subject's image. Gracenotes^T § 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the importance is in terms of a need for improvment, not a relative ranking of topics merit, I assure you java doesn't deserve any more merit than some other language. The C++ article reads fairly informatively and concisely with little misinformation, therefore doesn't need improvment, unlike this article which reads like a cross between a marketing brochure and a java text book for beginning java students, with out all of the flash of the former or cohesiveness of the latter might I add. 128.206.82.56 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)done

Java update

Every time I start up my laptop, I get an annoying reminder that there is a Java update ready to download and install. A few minutes ago, I finally gave in and installed it. The problem is, I don't know what the hell Java is, and this article doesn't really help. The installation set-up only said that the download will make my "Internet experience richer." So, can someone explain what the Java program or whatever really is? This article, like almost all computer-related articles on Wikipedia, is all technical jargon and doesn't make any sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.134.163 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I can download the update, and I can download a Shockwave Update. 65.43.178.200 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Kinz

What you have is a Java Plugin that runs Java applets in your browser, that are similar to Flash and ActiveX plugins. Those programs are used to create better interactive pages and normally the user will be unaware of it existence if everything is right and that is the reason for the constant updates. The other plataforms also have similar updates, but normally without notifying the user. This aspect of the Java technology is, however, a small portion (and quite francly one part in disuse) and this article had to deal with the entire aspect of the technology, making a good part of this technical jargon and doesnt making much sense to ppl outside of the software development market. Alvaroludolf 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is a general discussion forum or anything, but for what it's worth the relevant article is Java (Sun) and the "technical jargon" here is no worse than that on random chemistry articles. For some reason, people seem to assume that computer science shouldn't be treated in a scientific manner on Wikipedia even though other sciences are. Chris Cunningham 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you couldn't get the answers you needed. I agree the article is too techie. Maybe a techie will improve this. I'll try to help. In plain English, Java is a software technology that lets Web pages run programs on your computer, if you choose to allow them to. For example, if you want to play Yahoo Text Twist, you go to http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=texttwist and click on "Play Web Game (free)". You will see the Java symbol and a progress bar as the game loads. The Java technology is what runs the game in your browser.

Java is considered much safer than its competitor, Microsoft's ActiveX technology. The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, a division of the US Department of Homeland Security, has noted numerous critical security flaws in ActiveX, including in MySpace and Facebook, which could allow an attacker to take control of your computer. They "are currently unaware of a practical solution to this problem", and therefore recommend that you disable all ActiveX capability in Internet Explorer. They give instructions to do so, but an easier solution is to use a browser like Mozilla Firefox that inherently does not support (run) ActiveX programs. You will still need Internet Explorer and its ActiveX to get the latest Windows security fixes from the Microsoft Update page. These are issued the second Tuesday of each month and you need them for your safety. Other than that, Internet Explorer and ActiveX are unsafe and should not be used.

The automatic updating of your Java can be controlled if you like. Going back to playing the Text Twist game, you will see a Java icon in at the bottom of your screen. I think it's supposed to represent a cup of coffee ("Java"), but it's two blue lines with a red thing above. The large version is shown in this article. If in doubt, hover the mouse pointer over it and it will say "Java (TM) Platform, Standard Edition". Right-click this icon, then click "Open Control Panel". Click the "Update" tab. If you wish, you can uncheck "Check for updates automatically". However, these updates too may be for security reasons, so it's probably better to continue to allow them and install them.

65.43.178.200 has made the common error of confusing Java and Javascript. As Cynic783 points out, these are two completely different technologies. The reasons for this unfortunate confusion can be found in the Javascript article if you are interested. The important thing is that Javascript is also dangerous, the source of many current security issues for all Web browsers. The aforementioned US-CERT recommends adding the NoScript program to your Firefox browser. With this free addition, you can disable all Javascripting by default. When a trusted site (your bank) wants to run a Javascript, you can click and verify that it comes from the trusted source and allow it permanently (it won't have to ask you again). When a site (like Yahoo email) tries to run scripts from multiple sources, you can allow the script from Yahoo while forbidding the script from advertising.com or DoubleClick.net. This ability to discriminate among scripts coming from the same Web page is not available in Internet Explorer.

I'm not connected with Sun Microsystems, Mozilla/Firefox, or NoScript. I'm just another dumb user trying to stay safe in a shark-infested Internet. All of the above is free software and the POV is that of the US Dept. of Homeland Security. I agree that these articles should be more accessible to average users. Hope this helps. 24.110.24.175 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What chromium? Java now obsolete because OS support the concept of sandboxing... 128.206.82.56 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)done

Java or Java Script?

Should it be called Java or should it be called Java Script? 65.43.178.200 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Kinz

The programming language is called Java. JavaScript is a scripting language used mainly for web page functionality. Java is not JavaScript - JavaScript was confusingly named to play off of the Java name.

I've not checked, but as the two are distinct entities, JavaScript should have it's own page. Minkythecat (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

JavaScript is formally a ECMAScript dialect (the first and original dialect). They have their own articles. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say something: JavaScript is very loosely based off of the Java language, however, it is its own separate entity and programming language. So, in regards to the argument of should this article be Java or JavaScript, it should be Java because JavaScript has its own language (similar to java, but not in its functions and their execution). --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Javascript is very loosely based off of C and C++, while Java is much closer to C/C++. Neither has inherited anything from the other. You are correct, though, that Javascript should only be mentioned in the article for the purpose of clearing up confusion. Incripshin (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Java Updated

I have just updated my Java Script. 65.43.178.200 12:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Kinz

Javascript is a separate language with different syntax. I have never heard anyone say they have just updated their Java script...they say Java app or applet or class or jar file. I have been developing Java software for 11+ years.Cynic783 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, scripts tend to not have much boiler plate code, which means Java programs can never be called scripts. Incripshin (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV. Talk pages are for trying to improve articles, not throwing inconsistent personal opinions. Hervegirod (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that java does have a very large amount of boiler plate code if done properly, IE using get and set methods for each object and so on. I mean there is code that is written that just doesn't need to be in there for every program, but it is required for syntax sake. Like the static main being in an object for a program that doesn't even do dynamic allocation, but to have local variables you have to .... yada yada yada ... cut and paste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.196.136 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad OOP example

I think the OddEven class is a bad OOP example. It is a bad practice to take user inputs from a constructor. I suggest that the constructor should be changed to take an int as parameter and the user input is taken from the main method. Chinhnt2k3 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Chinhnt2k3

I tried to improve the example a bit. Hervegirod (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Maybe you should update the explanation below it too Chinhnt2k3 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Chinhnt2k3

"Java Class"

There is a random section, the first one, in fact, called "Java Class," explaining that anyone considering taking a Java class should not, especially "if it is the last class of the day." I am having trouble getting rid of it. Franciscoh (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Too technical

Wiki is great for getting a quick and dirty definition (that may take hours to research via the web) - except for technical matters! I would like to urge the techies to try to speak English - at least for the intro to their topics. I hear about Java all the time, but have no idea what it is. This page on Java doesn't help. The very first sentence should explain what Java is - because that is why we are coming to wiki to search for it. How do i tell if a web page i'm looking at is written in Java or something else? torus742 67.180.217.46 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It explains that Java is a programming language. Programming languages have a great deal of uses, only one of which is writing web pages. There's no definitive way to tell what language a web page is "written in"; it can be manually created by an author with HTML, or it can be generated by a web server which runs programs written in Java or PHP (amongst others). There's only so much an article lead can be simplified when it deals with a complicated subject; a panda can be explained as a big bear-like thing which lives in China, because "bear" and "China" are pretty familiar concepts to people. Web servers and language compilers aren't, but it's all we can define programming languages in terms of. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing topics

I miss a topic about the evolution of Java, it's many versions, and what changed between them. A timeline would also be great. Ramiro Pereira de Magalhães (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples

These are far too detailed and far too much like tutorial content. They should all be removed, and only snippets should be re-added if absolutely necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. People would look at this page to find out about Java the language, not for programming examples. Minkythecat (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Though I do think the "Hello World" program should be kept (maybe a program for each section, just to show the differences?). Also, along with the extraneous programs, the explanation of each one (to the point where the explanation is 5 times longer than the program) should be eliminated. --Tustin2121 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Swing application" example need some fixes:

• WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE -> EXIT_ON_CLOSE
• setLayout(new BorderLayout()); can be removed
• new Hello().setVisible(true); should be launched on EDT using SwingUtilities.invokeLater

my take on your proposal:

• WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE : You are technically right, but I think it is clearer to see WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE here (it's then clear that you use a particular swing constant, not some magic thing coming with JFrame)
• setLayout(new BorderLayout()): on one hand it adds some unneeded complexity to a Hello World program (what is a BorderLayout, etc..), but on the other hand approx. every Swing program has to use layout managers at one point, so I don't know what's better
• SwingUtilities.invokeLater: I think your proposal would add unnecessary complexity. There is no no action here, so I don't think it is a good thing to add this (we should keep a Hello World program simple, and it is not needed here IMHO). Hervegirod (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Productivity

This section should be removed: It is clearly POV, and using a very old reference (Java 1.2.1, benchmarks seem to be from 1999) whose conclusion are also very questionable, even at the time. Some quotes:

• In terms of run time and memory consumption, (scripting languages) often turn out better than Java and not much worse than C or C++. On the contrary, the last Computer language Shootout shows a factor 13 between Java and Python or Perl, 29 between Java and Tcl, 15 between Java and PHP, etc... I don't present the figures with C / C++ because it would be ridiculous,
• The article deal with some very specific types of programs (string manipulation and search in a dictionary). The section makes a generalization that is not in the original source conclusions.
• It is an interesting observation that despite the existence of hash table implementations in both the Java and the C++ class libraries none of the non-script programmers used them (but rather implemented a tree solution by hand) : I never saw anyone redesigning by hand collections implementations in Java since a lot of years, except for very specific cases (for example Hashtables with an exceptionally huge number of key-value pairs)
• In contrast, essentially all of the non-script programmers chose either of the following solutions. In the simple case, they simply store the whole dictionary in an array : No real Java programmer would do that. I bet that they asked C programmers with no experience in other languages do the programming in Java (which I may understand, there were less Java programmers in 1997 !!)
• The Java work times appear to be a bit pessimistic, probably due to the lower language experience of the 1997/1998 Java programmers. : sic !!!
• Even in the group-aggregated view with its much larger groups, the difference between C/C++ and scripts is not significant, only Java is less productive than scripts. Hervegirod (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally removed this part, we need to find a reference which is less flawed and also deals about a version of Java greater than Java 1.2.1 Hervegirod (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Performance

Wow! did you see the shoot out results. Java 6 static was as bad as 30 times worse than C. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=gcc&box=1 I could tell by using java that it wasn't good but ouch!99.195.196.136 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)done

You already quoted this in the article, but your example is not significant. You used the specific Java -Xint results of the shootout. -Xint is purely interpreted Java, meaning no JIT, meaning performance of the 90's era for Java. On the contrary, it shows Java performance has improved a lot over time. But I don't think this is even worth mentioning, because comparing nowadays Java using Hotspot / JIT with interpreted Java is comparing apples to rice noodles (oranges are closer) ;) Hervegirod (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article claims:

Dynamic recompilation can achieve optimizations superior to static compilation because the dynamic compiler can base optimizations on knowledge about the runtime environment and the set of loaded classes, and can identify the hot spots (parts of the program, often inner loops, that take up the most execution time)

This is bogus. You can profile a static compiled programm and give this input to your compiler to recompile your programm with this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.216.181 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GPL license.. which version?

The article is ambiguous in its reference to GPL. I see some press releases from 2006 that say that its released under the GPLv2 but then Sun relicensed OOo under the GPLv3 recently. Is this still GPLv2? 203.97.255.148 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.java.com/en/download/license.jsp Java is provided under the "Sun Binary Code Licence Agreement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.168.122 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Java is released by Sun under several licenses: Because Sun owns the copyright for the open-source code base, Sun is able to license each copy of this code base distributed by Sun, under any license, including a commercial software license. This right is inherent in copyright law. Several Free and open-source communities also follow this practice. (see FAQ here. It means that you can download the regular JDK under this proprietary binary code license agreement, but also, as OpenJDK, under GPLv2. Hervegirod (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Java and wikimedia software

If anyone is kind and has a moment, I'm just wondering if you could point me in the right direction, perhaps to a help page or FAQ somewhere: I want to put a java menu on the mainpage of a wiki. I'm very new at this. I don't know how this might be done in a wiki. Everything I do either breaks it or just doesn't work. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference POV

Can this reference possibly be anymore POV.

http://www.kano.net/javabench/

"I didn't bother debugging the C++ because I didn't know how."

Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding? But it says it's the "The Java is Faster than C++ and C++ Sucks Unbiased Benchmark" o_O;; You're absolutely right. Removing it. Mfb52 (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, now if we could just get java programmers to realize that 90% of the JRE code is written in C and C++, thank you GNU and the Gimp toolkit and so the whole comparison of Java to both C and C++ is really just shooting themselves in the foot.

http://java.sun.com/javase/6/

"We've added subpixel font rendering and improved our GIMP Toolkit (GTK+) and Windows look and feel."

Ah, but what can be expected from the language that was designed to replace COBOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisim

It looks to me that the Criticism section of this article is written in a very defensive tone. Instead of stating the criticisms of Java in a neutral light, it looks like it was written by a single user to defend criticisms that other people have made. This needs to be fixed, if Java is really as great as the current Criticism section makes out then it shouldn't need to be defended like that. 122.109.102.193 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to have a "criticism" section at all. The various criticisms should be addressed in the course of the article, not lumped into one place for random people to air their grudges with the language. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this continuously with Java, a theoretical concept with large gaps between the theory and practise. This article conveniently forked the conversation Java language and theory and Java JRE or impelementation. Ultimately I have only ever used one or some online simple applets, and a java student web protal, which has been replaced, so in the course of my computer experience java plays a very small role, and I believe this to be the case with most computer users experiences. Yet Java is very extensively taught at most universities to undergraduate business students. The language is continuously changed by the business sector, and is not standardized, so arguing against any one point and there are very many, is probably useless as is java.

Too easy for beginners and too difficult for professionals, I suggest this article "Keep It Simple!" Discussing the language with a proprietary standard is useless, eliminate the philosophical section about the language, and focus on the chronological development of the JRE, and giving credit to the GNU libraries that were used in the construction. 128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)done

Not gonna happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is with their fingers. 128.206.82.41 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)done

Abstract Syntax

Since many languages can be compiled to a Java Virtual Machine. The operational definition in the last sentence of the first paragraph, needs to be rephrased. 1) Many languages Ada, C, C++ can be compiled to run on the JVM. 2)Java can be compiled directly to machine code.

Furthermore for the naive reader, Virtual Machine may be better discussed elsewhere in the article, since to understand the first paragraph, one would already have to be familiar with the Virtual Machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that many language may run on the JVM, but that's not relevant to the lead section of the Java article. It's certainly appropriate to the JVM article, and indeed, it is mentioned in the lead there.

I'm afraid that that would make this article NPOV.

I guess it's also true that Java may be compiled to machine code, but this isn't common practice, not by a long stretch. The lead describes compilation to JVM bytecode as "typical", which I think is all that needs to be said at that point, as the lead is supposed to be a synopsis, not an enumeration of all possibilities.

NPOV?

The JVM is described at the JVM article, which is linked in the lead. An in-depth discussion isn't appropriate for this article, because it's not a part of the language. However, you're right, perhaps a brief summary of what a JVM is may help set the scene a little better. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

If it is not possible for the sake of brevity to enumerate all the problems with a statement, then it is better not to say it, IE that sentence should be removed because there are problems with its validity. Is it a definition wiki of Java for java programmers or a wiki of java for the rest of us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 August 2008

I'm not sure you necessarily understand what WP:NPOV is about. It is not about mentioning things that are irrelevant (e.g. the fact that Ada compiles to JVM is irrelevant to an article about the Java programming language). It is also not about providing equal weight that are overwhelmingly less common that the norm (e.g. compiling Java to machine code), especially in the article lead; see WP:UNDUE and the like.

The sentence as it stands is completely valid, as it is completely true, and doesn't purport to be a "definition". I see no reason to remove it. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to wiki Java or wiki wiki lets talk about relevance and NPOV. I said that if you can't enumerate everything that is wrong with a statement then you better not say it. Java is not the end all be all language... Java is not the definition of language, Java is a subset of Computer Languages, and as are most Computer Languages architecture independent so is Java. This concept is very relevant to this article. If Java is not a computer language what is this article about anyway?

Please prove that any other language is architecture dependent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.41 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2008

I have no idea what your point is, if indeed there was one at all. What on earth does "Java is not the definition of language" have to do with anything? If you have nothing useful to say, I suggest we terminate this discussion. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you've still failed to provide any meaningful reason for why this sentence should be removed. So please stop removing it. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. 128.206.82.41 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)done

Compiled vs. interpreted

Deary me, are we really having this discussion?

Typically, Java source code (i.e. the stuff you write your application in) is compiled to Java bytecode. The bytecode is then interpreted by the JVM. This is obvious from the fact that one has to run javac (the "Java compiler") on the source code before you obtain something that's executable by the JVM. To say otherwise is incorrect, no matter what that early reference says (look, I can find a reference that disagrees with yours: [1] !), and contradicts the article later on (Java (programming language)#Platform independence). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere perhaps. I will remove the philosphy section supported by the contradicting reference. done128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice Oli, bot my account. Sure philosophy section says its supposed to be interpretted but its not. I still conclude that Java is bad. Get a real language! done128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bots are automated; nothing to do with me. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess whatever you say and a buck will buy you a cup of java. done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Automatic memory management

I think this section can be largely removed/rewritten, the second paragraph is useful but the majority of the rest is general information on garbage collecting (i.e. not java specific) and/or has too much comparison with c/c++. Superfly Jon (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary goals v cite

The five primary goals listed in the article don't obviously match the 5 goals listed in the citation given? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem to match exactly. Here are the paragraph headings from the article:

1. Simple, Object Oriented, and Familiar
2. Robust and Secure
3. Architecture Neutral and Portable
4. High Performance
5. Interpreted, Threaded, and Dynamic

The first 3 roughly match points 5, 4 and 2. Point 1 is also covered in the first part and point 3 seems wrong. None of the points mention high performance.Superfly Jon (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all goals that C and C++ have already attained, and are all short falls of java except perhaps interpreted.

Using goals as facts is a fallacy, garbage collection is not DYNAMIC! done128.206.82.41 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that no where is Java designed to work well with other languages.

1. C and Java are simple, C++ is not. Neither C nor C++ is really OO. Java basically is OO, pretty much. C is familiar, C++ gets pretty weird in places. Java is pretty familiar, though it seems to get a bit weirder with each new release - arguably, as it tries to be more like C++.

1. Java too easy for beginners too difficult for professionals.

1. No language that allows ints and pointers to be used interchangeably is robust or secure (but you can still write robust and secure programs in them).

1. I thought you meant secure from hackers. But really we meant secure from poor programming. Why is it that all the Java programs require relaxing of my security standards?

1. C and C++ are reasonably portable, but not completely. For example, resolving a null pointer isn't fatal on some platforms. C/C++ are certainly are much less architecture neutral than Java - they need to be recompiled for each new platform. For a large program, that's not a trivial exercise, though it's probably better than it used to be.

1. bottom line is if C and C++ is portable Java isn't portable, thank you JRE. I think you are confusing portability with cross platform. Java doesn't have compiler directives, so you can't port it, or you can port it but you have to maintain two different version of said program, which is definitely not portable.

1. Yes. C beats Java hands down. C++ also, unless your programmer goes too deep into the box of magic tricks.

1. I can link C libraries to my C++ code so fast you can't imagine, so there is always a way to get it done fast, the line between C and C++ is faint, unlike Java where it is a memory management nightmare, every object has to be wrapped and unwrapped to get C to work with Java, and then you still have issues of in Linux its a .so file and Windows its a DLL, and there doesn't seem to be a way to tell Java that hey you need to load a different library ... see portability point above.

1. Interpreted has pluses and minuses. Java threading is out of the box. Dynamic, I'll let you decide.

1. Java still can't decide interpretted or compiled, it disagrees with the lead of the article.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

128.206.82.41 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC) done

128.206.82.41, this is not a general discussion forum for you to vent your issues with Java. Please either keep your comments solely to discussion of direct improvements to the article, or else stop derailing threads which are. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a meta conversation? Or do you have someother point about java that I'd like to pick apart? 128.206.82.41 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC) done

No, I'm warning you to cease using the talk page to "pick apart" people's comments about Java. Doing so in a way which is not conductive to article improvement is a distraction from the project's goal, and will get you blocked. Consider this to be yet another final warning, to go with the handful you've already picked up for your disruption here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Java is not a nice program in the sense that it ships in preemptive task mode. done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with user:thumperward. It is completely out of the subject. It is like saying "Red is not nice because it is not White". Hervegirod (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually preemptive task switching is relevant to the discussion of measuring performance of a language. A program can gain apparent performance by starving other processes of system resources. So comparing a java program to a C program is not accurate, as Java may be receiving more system resources, and even causing lowlevel IO to appear faster since java doesnt wait. Preemptive task switching also has the negative side effect of causing the entire system to appear to thrash, when in fact it is one poorly programmed Java program. Other programs that are guilty of this are MySQL. In gerenal programs that ship in this mode or use this behavioural marketing tactic are considered "Not Nice". done 69.29.68.204 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive task switching is at the basis of all modern Operating Systems, in whatever language they are programmed. You may think its cool to throw your own personal war using alternate IPs, but it's not. You should stop this now. Hervegirod (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive task switching is good for OS's, and bad for third party web applets written in languages like Java. I see the point that Java ships what equates to an operating system for the JVM(add a couple gigabytes per version might I add), however there is still no way to run Java programs at different priorities within the context of the JVM the scheduler just isn't there. It is also true that this is a cross platform issue in that java is not nice in all operating systems, and OS programmers have had to make explicit attempts to keep java from not only using high priority scheduling for all of its threads, but also locking other resources. I also believe attempts to obscure such issues to be bad faith evangelism, that happens to effect all processes not just java. Sorry about the IP, maybe if my service provider didn't charge extra for a static IP, I wouldn't have to worry about it. 69.29.68.204 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) done

As for the dynamic IP, it would be much better to create an account, the actual state of your contributions appear as dubious, even if they are not.

A weakness in wiki or a strength in java, I don't understand what you are talking about.

BTW it is possible to assign priorities to Java threads (see here).

Priorities to threads not to programs. IE there is no way to set an entire java program at any other prioity compared to other java programs, (can you imagine running more than one java program simultaneously?).

If you don't assign a priority to a Thread, it has by default a normal priority (not the highest as you wrote).

This is for the thread priority. The Java JRE still runs at high priority in the OS kernel as was standardly shipped, which is by definintion Not Nice, just like if I were to run all my java threads in high priority... Not Nice.

Yes but the Java Freezing behavior for Applets is not coming from the Threading behavior of the JVM, but to the fact that the Applet code must be downloaded prior to execution, and also because of the initialization of the virtual machine (on my PC PDF documents take more time to open than Java applets, I think more or less for the same reasons). If you find reliable sources saying the contrary, I have no problem with that, but for now it looks like POV to me. Hervegirod (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What java freezes my computer no way dude, do the marketroids let you say that? All I am saying is that it would take a little longer for java to load, but it wouldn't lock my computer and cause my system to drag if it weren't shipped in high priority mode. done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AOT

warning, java newbie alert!

under "Java Platform" theres a sentence...

"AOT could give Java something like performance"

is there meant to be a word between "like" and "performance" and if so what?

thanks The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence is jargon, treating an objective measure, "performance", like a quality ranking. I understand it immediatelly, but cannot say what's missing, the word could be "acceptable", "good", "better" or some such. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

well now i've thought about it a bit i think it probably means to say "AOT could give Java something like the performance a more traditional compiler would give". what do you think? The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor or Irrelevant Examples??

The section Examples is marked {{examplefarm}} but nobody tells us why, on this talk page. That's poor templating! Now are the examples poor? IMHO: Maybe – I got warnings when compiling them with gcj, but they executed. They're IMHO not so poor, but needs improvement. Are the examples irrelevant? IMHO: somewhat – they happened to be exactly what I needed, just now, thank You very much someone, but they belong to Java applet and Java servlet, technically – they don't explain the language Java, which IMHO is what the article should treat. Have opinions! (Or if hungry: onions). Said: Rursus (☻) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree (mostly), when reading the examples they where just what i wanted so i'm going to delete the tag. but i'm slightly confused by your comments cos the applet/servlet stuff is under a different section, ie Special Classes which seems fine to me. tho i'd probably like to see those examples in the Java applet and Java servlet pages too. cheers. The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should include instance methods

I think this article should include instance methods, such as operators, import statements, import statement locations, dot notation, and the API. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.179.96 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Improved Hello World Example

The Hello World example should demonstrate object creation and the calling of an instance method. It should also probably have a field. Alas a balance between example and brevity must be struck.

/**
 * Outputs "Hello, World!" and then exits
 */
public class HelloWorld {
    public void greetWorld(PrintStream stream) {
        stream.println("Hello, World!");
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        HelloWorld worldGreeter = new HelloWorld();
        worldGreeter.greetWorld(System.out);
    }
}

--DataSurfer (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this be overkill?

package org.wikipedia.examples;
import java.io.PrintStream;  {{subst:Unsigned|1=DataSurfer|2=11:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
/**
 * Outputs "Hello, World!" and then exits
 */
public class Greeter {
    String salutation;
    public Greeter(String salutation) {
        this.salutation = salutation;
    }
    public void greet(PrintStream stream, String target) {
        stream.println(salutation + ", " + target + "!");
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Greeter englishGreeter = new Greeter("Hello");
        englishGreeter.greet(System.out, "World");
    }
}

--DataSurfer (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no. In general, a Hello World example should be the simplest possible program that displays "Hello world". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Android?

While there are many folks who feel that Android is not "pure Java", I think it warrants a mention because Android has numerous constructs from the Java language, including its syntax. I also think Java users would be interested in hearing about Android if they're not already familiar with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigameshow (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Optimized OddEven

// OddEven.java
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;
 
public class OddEven {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
	System.out.println(
	 (
	  (new Integer(
		JOptionPane.showInputDialog("Please Enter A Number")
	  ) & 1
	 )
	)==0 ? "Even" : "Odd");
    }
}

I don't think this could help users to understand Java. It looks like something coming from Perl or C obfuscated programs contests. Plus it does not handle inputs that are not integers. Hervegirod (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've heard both ['dʒɑvə] (American) and ['dʒævə] (Canadian). I'm pretty sure the American pronunciation is closer to the original since the real name of the island, Jawa, is awkward to pronounce the Canadian way. Incripshin (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User spreading unsourced POV views on the article

An unregistererd user signing doneon many of his contributions (he is often using Special:Contributions/128.206.82.56 IP) is spreading FUD on Java performance, and repeatedly revert other people edits in order to give his own personal view. He is obviously convinced that Java is very slow compared to C, and has started to modify this article according to his own views. He has recently edited (and already reverted) the Performance optimizations paragraph with the sentence: "however there are cases where Java is more than 30 times slower than C". The problem is that the benchmark he quote compares GNU GCC with Java with the -Xint flag, so with purely interpreted Java. When I reverted this with this explanation, he replied on the Talk page:You obviously didn't read the reference. There is also a server mode. This article reports best case scenario, there are also worst case scenarios (which he did not provide of course). I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I think that something needs to be done to stop his WP:POV behavior on this article. Hervegirod (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is someone maybe going to protect the article then so he can't edit it and is forced to get a real username to edit on Wikipedia? --Tustin2121 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I didn't donate to the wiki if this is the kind of article that is promoted. Maybe I should file litigation with the wikipedia for spreading false information about the performance of computer language. I have used java and seldom is java, "as fast" as C, in fact I know there are simple programs that can stump java and take many minutes compared to seconds with C. I think the Ubuntu shoot out is a good article that compares many languages. I also believe that this is a marketing based article. If you look at people like Olifilth and cybercobar, you will see that they actually are or were paid by Sun. This is not a marketing brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.82.56 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have the right to think what you want about Java or any other subjects, but wikipedia is not about what editors think. Original research and Personal views are banned here. Also speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute WP:OUTING, which is a serious offense here. I strongly advise you to stop this. This means you should immediately revert your speculation about their identities from the Talk page. Hervegirod (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't speculate it is on their wall. And meat puppets are prohibited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.196.136 (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that only thumperward, also known as chris cunningham is sun microsystems, I think Oli used to be but his page no longer has anything on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.196.136 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh still having this converastion still thing java is fast as C yadda yadda, it all comes down to rate of fire. The bottom line is C is faster in every case, every time. You want to discuss more lets go. Not original research not personal experience its just plain Sun garbage, and the prosyltization. Do they really call them java evangelists, yes they do.