« Near miss migrating to Linux | Main | 10MHz (no, not 10GHz) PowerMac »
May 06, 2004
Redneck jokes for Java
If you have to download a 1.4Mb file before you can run a 20kb "applet" ... you must be using Java.
If you have recently or frequently visited the "Microsoft VM" section of the Advanced Settings of Internet Options in Internet Explorer ... you must be using Java.
If you have to install separate versions of the "universal" JVM to support the "portable" code that was written to specific, conflicting versions of the JVM ... you must be using Java.
If your "portable" applications run slower, look more generic, and are more complicated to install, but are still only available for specific OS(s) ... you must be using Java.
If your applications require users to set up a separate machine for your application, so they can install the specific version of "supporting" software you require, which conflicts with other versions of the same "supporting" software other vendors require, so both versions can't run on the same machine ... you must be using Java.
If you sacrifice performance and resource efficiency in the name of faster development and portability, even though you only release your product for a specific platform and version of the "portable" environment ... you must be using Java.
If you prefer "pseudo-byte codes" to "binary compilations" because they are more portable (in theory) ... you must be using Java.
If you are frustrated because software vendors ship software that is slower, uses more memory, requires installation environments that conflict with other vendors' software, requires you to switch JVM's in your browser based on which "portable" Java applet you are trying to access, crashes your browser, leaks memory so you can't leave them running, and uses a GUI so generic it would be more effective as a text-only application ... you must be using Java.
I don't mind if developers think Java is great to develop in. They can develop in Smalltalk or Scheme or LISP or Fortran or Forth or write streams of binary digits for all I care. Just don't make me suffer the language you choose.
If you can't develop Java code that is 100% compatible with every version of every JVM, in an application that is compelling to be portable, don't bother. Compile it to a binary for the platform that I'm using, and make it look as good and work as good as any other application for that platform.
I love the theory of Java. I hate the reality. Maybe C# will do better.
Posted by pete at May 6, 2004 09:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Comments
Yup.
Posted by: Stu at May 10, 2004 10:25 AM
how does one cross-compile a GUI app for windoze/osx?
Posted by: pablo at May 10, 2004 11:25 AM
I worked for a company that wrote their monitoring application in java, but it would only run on one OS (Solaris 2.6) with a certain patch set (that changed every time we tested), and their own version of java (1.3.something.developer's name).
java has the potential to be something much more than it is, but... until its vm runs better, and programmers are forced to code to a single standard, we're (as consumers, sysadmins, and other people who have to deal with java) screwed.
Posted by: kshgoddess at May 14, 2004 12:33 AM