Talk:Java (programming language)/Archive 2

message: I think the Java Runtime Environment section should have its own article, same as the developer's Kit.  What we could do is have a blurb on it in this article and have a See also: Java runtime environment there.
The reason why I suggest we split it up is because the java programming language, the java runtime environment, and the java developer's kit are three different things/ideas.  That may make things clearer. --ShaunMacPherson 05:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a start on this. – Smyth 13:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this up, JRE & JDK seperated 

message: What is the differences between them ??. :-? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.3.242 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 8 November 2004
: JVM is a generic term, see Java virtual machine. JRE specifically refers to Sun's product, comprising their own JVM implementation and their own Java API implementation. – Smyth 13:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  JDK includes JRE. JRE includes JVM. JDK is available for download by developers. JRE is available for download by clients. Anwar saadat 03:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Close, Anwar saadat, but not quite correct.  JDK ("Java 2 System Development Kit") is indeed a Sun Microsystems product targeted at programmers.  It contains all sorts of tools for creating and building Java programs.  JRE ("Java Runtime Environment"), while sounding like a more generic term, is also a Sun product, this time targeted at consumers of Java programs.  It contains just the components necessary to run a normal Java program, and comes bundled in with the JDK ('cause developers need it too).  But JVM ("Java Virtual Machine") is a very generic term.  Sun's current JVM product, is called "Java HotSpot Virtual Machine", and is one such JVM and is embedded within the JRE (and therefore within the JDK).  In fact, it's Sun's second attempt at a JVM - their first attempt was responsible for much of the "Java runs slowly" folklore in the early days.  But there are other JVMs, some of which are better at running Java programs than Sun's HotSpot JVM (for example, IBM's JVM).  And even Sun currently provides two differently-tuned JVMs, accessible from the "java" command via the "-server" and "-client" options. RossPatterson 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JVM and JRE 

message: The complaints about collections and casting etc in this section are out of date with the generics & auto-unboxing in v1.5 (which are discussed in following section) and I can't see any other point in that section but have a feeling that if I removed it, it would be replaced. Anyone care to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybee (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 November 2004
: Not neccesarily everyone uses Java 1.5 and thus the prblems still remain. Of couse, adding some mention that they were fixed with the release of 1.5 would be nice. -- Taku 18:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:: I've added the 5.0 versions. Although the Java IO section needs some similar treatment. Why focus on IO over the whole of Java is strange to me  --Calvin 21:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because IO is kinda vital to any serious server application? In particular before nio it was impossible to code a single threaded event driven server app (which is by far the best method for certain types of server) in java. Plugwash 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to the Java Language is outdated 

message: I have just landed on the orphaned Strictfp article via a random link. I've wikified it and added it to :category:Java programming language, but it could do with a link from somewhere. The trouble is I don't know where would be apropriate - or even if it is apropriate to keep it as an article of its own, or should be merged somewhere (but I don't know where would be apropriate). I thought about VfDing it, but I don't know enough about the subject to know if it is really worth keeping or not. I am putting this here becuase as a featured article this talk page is probably going to be on the watchlists of people who know what they are talking about! Thryduulf 15:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to strictfp, which is mentioned in Java programming language#Version history. --MarkSweep 18:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Strictfp]] 

message: Yet another mass delete, please discuss large changes here first and get the version correct please :*) --Calvin 22:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 67.118.123.235 

message: The comments that have been added to the article concerning Sun control are POV and reflect a shallow understanding of the JCP and of the historic situation. While Sun is the spec lead on many JSRs in the area of J2SE platform features, that's not the case with J2ME platform features and is not a necessary feature of the JCP - expert group leadership is now diverse. Additionally, ownership of specs is always shared by the expert group lead for practical reasons, so implications that that's bad in Sun's case are demonstrably POV. If it's essential that this topic is covered, a full explanation will be needed, and I suggest the appropriate place for it is in the JCP topic. As to controversy - well, it's controversial among those who don't understand it!  --Webmink 01:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sun Control" comments in API 

message: The article on Java generally makes a very good run at explaining complicated issues clearly and succinctly.
One exception is the section entitled Object Oriented. Here the author has mistakenly adopted a too high level of abstraction, so that anyone reading the text and lacking familiarity with Object Orientation would be confused and put off.
The remedy is to begin by relying on concrete example(s), application(s) and familiar anologie(s); only later hinting at higher levels of abstraction.
I am making corrections along these lines. 
Philopedia 00:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Object Oriented 

message: This was under 'Related free software', as a quick fix i moved it here. I hope somebody who is more erudite in this area than i am will reuse it!
* Non-free IDEs
**CodeGuide
**IntelliJ IDEA
**JBuilder
**JCreator
**JCreator LE (freeware)
**IBM Websphere Studio Application Developer
**BEA Weblogic
** Oracle JDeveloper
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.231.48 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2005
: What is the point of the "Related free software" section, anyway? ISTM it is just bloat that does not add much to the article; at best, it should be moved to a separate article. Objections to me just removing it? Neilc 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free IDEs under: 'Related free software' is ambiguous! 

message: :The College Board currently administers an Advanced Placement exam in Computer Science, which tests knowledge in Java and object oriented programming. The exam also tests knowledge on the Marine Biology Simulation Case Study a program written in Java. The exam switched from C++ to Java as its featured programming language in the 2003-2004 school year.
This seems to have been added and removed a few times over the history of this article.  I personally don't think it's relevant (many institutions run Java exams, this one isn't particularly notable), but if it does have to be in the article it certainly doesn't belong in the 'Java meets the Internet' section.  I noticed that it did originally have its own heading, but that seems to have been lost along the way.  I've removed it for now, if someone feels strongly that it belongs in the article please can we try to decide on an appropriate section for it? --Batneil 16:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advanced Placement Program exam 

message: I don't think that Java programming language is the best name for this article.  That's not what it's actually called.  I suggest Java (programming language) (currently a redirect) or Java Technology (which is used by . violet/riga (t) 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles on programming languages follow the format "X programming language". Dysprosia 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, many do.  I think it would be better for them all to have it as "X (programming language)" but that's probably too much work.  Best to leave it here then, I guess, as it needs to be consistent. violet/riga (t) 12:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I've pulled the following paragraph from the section on interfaces and classes (sorry I forgot to sign in before making the change):
Methods defined by an interface are implicitly public and abstract. Fields defined by an interface are implicitly public, static, and final.
Without explanations of the meanings of public, abstract, static, and final, this paragraph adds little value.  But, adding the explanations would be adding detail, and this paragraph seems to already be too much detail. Mark Harrison 06:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  public, abstract, static, and final 

message: A recent edit to this article claimed that "Any strongly typed language will have more type declarations" (presumably, when compared to a weakly-typed language). This is wrong:
*strongly-typed languages don't need explicit type annotations at all, according to most definitions of strong typing. Perhaps the author meant statically-typed.
*statically-typed languages do not necessarily require explicit type annotations, either: the compiler just needs to be able to infer type information at compile-time. ML and Haskell are two examples of statically-typed languages in which type declarations are uncommon (most types are automatically inferred by the compiler).
IMHO there is more to the "Java is needlessly verbose" claim that just the cruft that results from type declarations, anyway.
Neilc 20:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're in agreement about what I see as the main issue... that type declarations aren't a major contributor to Java verbosity.  I have no problem if someone wants to talk about Java's verbosity or any other perceived flaw, I just feel like we should accurately reflect what is unique to Java as opposed to what is a paradigm that someone would find problematic in any language.  For example, see the previous objection to getters and setters, and the objection that Java isn't a procedural programming language. The Hokkaido Crow 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  verbosity and typing 

message: Hi. In an attempt to clarify what I thought was one of the other editors' objections to Java I wrote this:
Properties — public fields that are tied to code rather than directly to data — are not supported in Java. A more verbose convention involving get and set methods is popular and has substantial tool support.
The Hokkaido Crow reverted my edit this with the comment it appears to have factuality problems, but s/he didn't elaborate. What are the factually problems?
Ben Arnold 22:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properties