OMG Oracle/Sun ... out of the loop developer panicking
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Arne Vajhøj on 28 Feb 2010 22:46 On 27-02-2010 11:00, Robert Klemme wrote: > On 02/27/2010 04:46 AM, Lew wrote: >> Roedy Green wrote: >>> MySQL competes with Oracle's database products. >> >> For certain extremely weak values of "compete". > > For Oracle the more serious threat in Open Source land seems to be > PostgreSQL. From what I am hearing MySQL isn't ready for large scale > deployments Tell that to those tiny companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn ... > - maybe as MySQL Enterprise but that is a special > subscription that has to be paid for. It is the exact same database server. The difference is the license, the support and some tools. http://www.mysql.com/products/which-edition.html#difference Arne
From: BGB / cr88192 on 1 Mar 2010 00:21 "Arne Vajh�j" <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:4b8b366e$0$285$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > On 28-02-2010 20:07, BGB / cr88192 wrote: >> "Arne Vajh�j"<arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in message >> news:4b8afff4$0$272$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... >>> On 28-02-2010 15:19, DuncanIdaho wrote: >>>> Anyway as for IBM, I remember using some >>>> ghastly piece of IBM IDE nastiness whose name I have expunged from my >>>> memory forever. It was an explosion of green and grey with millions of >>>> windows and the most appalling spaghetti code nonsense you ever have >>>> seen ... >>> >>> Visual Age for Java 3.5 and 4.0 is on the top-10-hate-list of >>> many developers. >>> >> >> can't claim any personal experience with this one... > > Consider yourself lucky. > yep... >>>> and if I ever had to 'migrate' to .NET I think I'd drown myself >>> >>> It is not that bad. >>> >>> You will find a lot of the stuff very familiar. >> >> agreed. >> >> actually, MS's tools and basic technology are fairly well polished. > ... >> but, what of the cost?: >> between them, CIL is very much more complex, and its >> binary-representation >> (as a hacked-over PE/COFF image with something vaguely similar to a >> relational-database thrown in the mix), is generally somewhat ugly and >> difficult to work with (difficult to load, difficult to process, metadata >> has an inconvinient layout and is not really easy to convert, ...). > > That is not a problem for those writing apps. > granted, but it does matter some for VM writers, which in turn matters for them being a variety of free implementations... more implementations means more options and more choice, as well as the ability to mix and match parts to find a particular combination best suited to ones' particular needs, ... but, I know of some of its issues, having gone through the experience of writing a loader, ... >> similarly, there are not any particularly good alternative >> implementations >> (many alternative implementations exist of Java, but very few of .NET, >> and >> those which do exist are generally fairly poor...). > > Mono is not that bad today. > doesn't work nearly as well on Windows though, and I couldn't get it to rebuild from sources on Windows... also it is GPL and the code isn't exactly clean (logic from unrelated components is tangled together, there would not seem to be any clean "layers of abstraction" or clearly separated subsystems, ...), which can also be detractors... similarly, I think there is little chance of it building with MSVC. otherwise, granted, it is a good option (it works well on Linux, and on Windows there is MS's implementation). >> but, I have gone and tried to make a VM which can deal with both JBC and >> CIL >> (as well, it has its own internal IL as well, of a vaguely similar style >> to >> JBC and CIL, but this IL is not particularly well suited for anything not >> C...). > > IKVM can run Java byte code in .NET CLR. > granted... my VM originally did neither (it was originally written so that I could have eval and dynamic script loading with C), but I started adding support for both later on (although on both fronts progress is slow). oddly, one of the most heavily-used languages in the project thus far is ending up being ASM, mostly because the assembler happens to generate code faster much than my C compiler, and is more generally usable than my JavaScript-like language (but at the cost of the ASM being target specific, which is a bit lame). so, ASM is used in many of the places where ideally eval would have come in handy... (ASM is also used by the JIT backends and similar, ...). (note: dynamic linking is done by a linker, which generally accepts COFF objects, typically produced by the assembler, where both x86 and x86-64 COFF objects are supported). many of the parts were designed after other commonly-used components, although some parts have ended up being mash-ups of different vaguely-related pieces of technology (and are thus unorthodox in this respect). for example, metadata is managed by a DB resembling the "Windows Registry" and with a signature-system based on a mash-up of JVM-signature strings and the IA64-ABI (and when encoded in symbol names, use JNI-style mangling...). errm, I based the DB on the Registry as this seemed to be easiest to implement. admitted, at this point in time the project is not likely to really be useful to anyone besides myself... I guess it is a reasearch project of sorts, but I am the only person involved... or such...
From: BGB / cr88192 on 1 Mar 2010 00:43 "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hmf407$dbd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>> and if I ever had to 'migrate' to .NET I think I'd drown myself >> >> It is not that bad. >> >> You will find a lot of the stuff very familiar. > > Very, very familiar. depends where one looks and how deeply one digs... things similar: the C# language design, overall structure, ... MSIL/CIL bytecode (both use 0xFE for multi-byte opcodes, ...), but the names and numbers of the opcodes is different (although a few are similar); both JBC and MSIL are based on stack machines; .... things different: namespaces vs packages; PE/COFF vs JAR and class-files; metadata format is very different (a big multiple table based structure rather than a flat array of assorted entries of various types, differences in overall organization, ...); there are differences in the validation rules; .... although, granted, there is much more in common between them than, say, between either of them and native-code... actually, granted, one can sort of think that maybe MSIL is like what one would get if one tried combining together a lot of the mechanics from something like the JVM with a lot of parts from a native-code C or C++ compiler or similar... actually, thinking about it as JVM + C++ compiler seems to make a fair amount of sense WRT the overall design, at several different levels. it is possible that they could be related somehow... or such...
From: DuncanIdaho on 1 Mar 2010 02:39 Lew wrote: > Lew wrote: >>> Perhaps you use a different dictionary from the rest of us? > > DuncanIdaho wrote: >> Ah, the dictionary man, hello again, well thanks for putting me >> straight. Unlike you however I don't spend my time with my head up my >> ... er, in a dictionary. My wife thinks you may have a little too much >> time on your hands, I think she may be right. > > That's not what she told me last night at the motel. > >> Very funny though, most amusing. > > Can't refute the point, so you attack the man? > OK, this will be my last reply to you Lew as you are obviously a very unhappy individual. I've been so impressed with the other replies on this list that I think I'll hang around for a while. My particular interest is in the analysis and design of complex business systems starting if possible from a natural language statement of requirements. More often than not however I get a bunch of high level use cases produced by what are sometimes called 'functional analyists'. I prototype and implement these systems in Java. Anyway, if I can be bothered I will pay particuar attention to your contributions to this group to see if you are as objectionable to others as you have been to me. (objectionable: –adjective 1. causing or tending to cause an objection, disapproval, or protest. 2.offending good taste, manners, etiquette, propriety, etc.; offensive: objectionable behavior) BTW, I was going to write a long and detaild refutation of your assertion that I had got wrong WRT the Oracle Java pages however I really can't be bothered. Suffice to say I stick by my original statement. The original Java site 'appears' to be 'defunct' (refutation: –noun an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.; disproof) Anyway, I expect we will run into each other again soon, looking forward to it actually, good to get the brain back up to speed again. If anyone has similar interests to mine WRT analysis and design I'd be deligted to discuss. I'd forgotten what jolly good fun usenet can be. ttfn Idaho
From: Robert Klemme on 1 Mar 2010 15:45
On 28.02.2010 15:43, Lew wrote: > Robert Klemme writes: >>>> What exactly did we loose so far? I am not aware of any loss that >>>> affects my work or other aspects of my life caused by this deal. > > Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Two remarks regarding English: >>> >>> - it should be »... did we lose so far ...« and > > Bravo! Hey, I'm really embarrassed about that stupid mistake of mine. Do you really need to poke around this wound? :-) > Robert Klemme wrote: >> Of yes, of course you are right! How embarrassing. >> >> I do believe though that Roedy does not mourn the loss of the 'o' that >> you found in my posting. ;-) > > That didn't make sense. Well, I'm a) not a native speaker and b) German so you can see that I'm doubly handicapped and it shouldn't surprise you that my attempt at humor failed miserably. Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ |