Future reuse of code

[Stephane Richard]

Re: Future reuse of code

You two had me going there for a sec, I actually wondered if I was indeed on
a Pascal newsgroup :-)....had to double check.

--
Stéphane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor

http://www.totalweb-inc.com

For all your hosting and related needs


"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee. net> wrote in message
news:bhgita$ejq $1@peabody.colo rado.edu...[color=blue]
>
> On 14-Aug-2003, ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote:
>[color=green]
> > the bottom line is that
> > (now read this slowly, so that it sinks in)
> > *code* *written* *in* *java* *will* *be* *portable* *to*
> > *fewer* *platforms* *than* *code* *written* *in* *C*.[/color]
>
> Programs as written will run without change when moved to a different[/color]
platform?[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > do you argue that ??? you'd be incredibly stupid and/or
> > brain damaged to argue that point.[/color]
>
> There are other options besides your insulting ones. But when someone is[/color]
into[color=blue]
> that type of insulting, whether he has anything useful to contribute gets
> overlooked.[/color]

[docdwarf@panix.com]

Re: Future reuse of code

In article <bhgj3v$1nq$1@t yfon.itea.ntnu. no>,
Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.n o> wrote:[color=blue]
>In article <bhg685$97i$1@p anix1.panix.com >, <docdwarf@panix .com> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>If the statements in question are the result of mere ignorance then they
>>lack the intentionality which is required of a lie... or am I missing
>>something?[/color]
>
>You seem to be missing the fact that it was a flame. Logic and correct
>use of vocabulary are non-issues in that context.[/color]

Ahhhh, *now* I understand... thanks greatly, you... you poopie-head, you!

(did I do that right?)

DD

[Stephane Richard]

Re: Future reuse of code

You two had me going there for a sec, I actually ondered if I was indeed on
a Pascal newsgroup :-)....had to double check.

--
Stéphane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor

http://www.totalweb-inc.com

For all your hosting and related needs


"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee. net> wrote in message
news:bhgita$ejq $1@peabody.colo rado.edu...[color=blue]
>
> On 14-Aug-2003, ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote:
>[color=green]
> > the bottom line is that
> > (now read this slowly, so that it sinks in)
> > *code* *written* *in* *java* *will* *be* *portable* *to*
> > *fewer* *platforms* *than* *code* *written* *in* *C*.[/color]
>
> Programs as written will run without change when moved to a different[/color]
platform?[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > lo you argue that ??? you'd be incredibly stupid and/or
> > brain damaged to argue that point.[/color]
>
> There are other options besides your insulting ones. But when someone is[/color]
into[color=blue]
> that type of insulting, whether he has anything useful to contribute gets
> overlooked.[/color]

[Scott Condit]

Re: Future reuse of code

docdwarf@panix. com wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ummmmm... it may be that things have changed but I was taught that a lie
> was told with intent to deceive; it is the intention which differentiates
> it from a simple 'false statement' or 'just being wrong'.[/color]

Whilst that usage is certainly more common, the broader one is also
valid.

e.g. from www.m-w.com:
lie, n: [1b] an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not
be believed true by the speaker

S

[Richard]

Re: Future reuse of code

ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >>> but java is only available for platforms that are big enough to run
> > >>> it.[/color]
> >
> > There is Waba which is a JVM for smaller machines such as Palm and CE PDAs.
> > There is even a version for MS-DOS, one for GameBoy, and a version for TI
> > Calculators.[/color]
>
> you miss the point.[/color]

No, I didn't 'miss the point at all'. The 'point' was the comment
about 'big enough'.
[color=blue]
> not only does C also target all the platforms
> that java does, it targets a whole lot more as well.[/color]

That was not 'the point'.

If you had wanted to argue rationally (and I see no evidence of this)
then you may have pointed out that the WabaVM was written in C.

The whole argument between C and Java is pointless, you are yelling
past each other. You have different views of 'portable'. With full
Java it just runs wherever it is available - automatically portable
with no effort, not even a recompile.

With C there is work to do to at least recompile (ignoring C
interpreters), sometimes quite a bit of work, but compilers and cross
compilers are available more places.

I point you an expert opinion in the July-August 1978 Bell System
Technical Journal in an article 'Portability of C Programs and the
Unix System' by S.C.Johnson and D.M.Ritchie:

"A program is portable to the extent that it can be easily moved to a
new computing environment with much less effort than would be required
to write it afresh."
You are using this version of 'portability', one that is meaningless
to (full) Java which is _ONE_ 'computing environment' regardless of
the machine it runs on.

While C may run on more different machine type this is usually
irrelevant to Java programmers because different 'computing
environments' have completely different needs and different types of
programs. It would be pointless to make a mainframe batch program run
on a PDA, or a PDA applet run in a real-time process controller. A
real-time program can't do anything on a PC, A PC game won't run in a
GameBoy.

All of you who are ranting about portability and availability are
'missing the points' completely, but I doubt if you care what they are
anymore, if you ever did. They are _different_ not wrong.

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On 14 Aug 2003 06:02:20 -0700, ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote or
quoted :
[color=blue]
>thats a lie again. C is cross-platform.
>period.[/color]

Don't be silly. Look at any C code designed to run on many platforms.
It is riddled with macros to pull off the feat.

You can do a few simple things like parse the command line, open a
flat file in a platform independent way, but not even the size of int
is guaranteed unless you play some games with macros.

You certainly can't write to a gui without some cross platform library
which is not part of C. Java is in a quite different position. The
standard class libraries are everywhere Java is supported.

C is a portable assembler.

Making code run absolutely unmodified on all platforms and giving the
same results would interfere with its use as a portable assembler.

Have you written any cross platform C or Java?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On 14 Aug 2003 05:49:27 -0700, ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote or
quoted :
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Bottom line is the odds of a Java app running correctly without
>> modifications are much higher than a C program.[/color][/color]

the JVM itself is written in C++, This would imply it needs even less
porting than the Java programs it runs. This is clearly false.

You give yourself away with your handle "goose". You are a silly goose
teasing us.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Mark Gordon]

Re: Future reuse of code

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:39:15 GMT
Roedy Green <roedy@mindprod .com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 05:33:07 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.c a>
> wrote or quoted :
>[color=green]
> >
> >Haven't been there but lived real close in Guildford at one stage -
> >reading you C and Java people, I feel like a Wimbledon spectator with
> >my head zinging from left to right as the opponents take a swipe at
> >the ball ![/color]
>
> If you want to write cross platform code in C++ you have to buy a
> rather expensive cross platform library, something like Rogue Wave.[/color]

Completely wrong. I work on an applications with about 200,000 lines of
C code + a lot of lines of code in a scripting language, where
the interpretor for the scripting language is part of the C source I
just mentioned. The same source code is used for building both the
Windows and various Linux versions with us paying exactly nothing for
cross platform libraries.

This application is very heavily used by a number of large companies in
the UK with literally hundreds of simultaneous users of the application
on a single machine.
[color=blue]
> C++ or C out the box is far from being cross platform. What you can
> do is write code that can be tweaked to run on another platform, or
> you can create a set of macros to make the same code base run on one
> or two platforms. However the C and C++ are not naturally
> multiplatform. They are lower level languages. That is why they are
> used for JNI when you want to get personal with the OS.
>
> C is much more cross platform in the Unix world, but when you throw in
> Windows and the Mac, you pretty well have to start from scratch. With
> C and C++ you interface directly with the OS.[/color]

the languages are entirely cross platform. The extensions required for
handling platform specifics are usually a very small isolated part of
a large well written program.
[color=blue]
> With Java there is a
> buffering layer of standard class libraries.
>
> The language wars are for the most part kid nya nya games. You need
> both C++ and Java for different things. There are not many places
> where you would you would use pure C now instead of C++, perhaps a
> device driver or some code to fit in an embedded device.
>
> It is like arguing which is better a wrench or a screwdriver.[/color]

Yes, they are useful for different things, but for a large number of
applications cross-platform is not an advantage of Java over C because C
is cross platform as proved by my using the same source on completely
different platforms. I've even used the same source code (a few thousand
lines) on both an embedded DSP processor and a graphics workstation with
_absolutely_no_ changes_!
--
Mark Gordon

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:53:51 +0100, Mark Gordon
<spamtrap@fla sh-gordon.me.uk> wrote or quoted :
[color=blue]
>
>Completely wrong. I[/color]

I would agree out of date but not completely wrong. Ok, cheaper or
free packages have come available since Rogue Wave was the tool we
were using.

These packages themselves have to be tuned for each platform. If the
runtime does not exist for the platform you want you are SOL. They are
not universally available the way the Java class libraries are.
They are not part of the language. They come from various third
parties.


All you have done it fob the work of platform independence off on a
third party. The LANGUAGE is giving you precious little help.

The equivalent problem occurs with Java, but the language itself and
the standard class libraries isolate you from all that platform
specific code that had to be written.


Coding for platform independence is something you can do in C++, but
it is not something that comes out in the wash automatically the way
it does in Java. It requires effort and third party libraries chock
full of platform dependent code.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Kevin Easton]

Re: Future reuse of code

In comp.lang.c Roedy Green <roedy@mindprod .com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On 14 Aug 2003 06:02:20 -0700, ruse@webmail.co .za (goose) wrote or
> quoted :
>[color=green]
>>thats a lie again. C is cross-platform.
>>period.[/color]
>
> Don't be silly. Look at any C code designed to run on many platforms.
> It is riddled with macros to pull off the feat.
>
> You can do a few simple things like parse the command line, open a
> flat file in a platform independent way, but not even the size of int
> is guaranteed unless you play some games with macros.[/color]

The size of int is guaranteed in a useful way - it's guaranteed than an
int can hold the values from -32767 to 32767. If you only need to store
numbers that big, than an int is your man. If you need to store numbers
larger, then you probably want a long int, which is similarly guaranteed
to hold numbers in a particular range.

People who *think* they need an exact-width type, rather than an
at-least width type, are usually wrong.

- Kevin.

[Peter E.C. Dashwood]

Re: Future reuse of code

Thanks for the response, Stephane.

Some good points.

My comments below...

"Stephane Richard" <stephane.richa rd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:HcB_a.2659 $jw4.1195@nwrdn y03.gnilink.net ...[color=blue]
> Are you saying that in 20 years, a programmer wont have the tools to make
> his own programming language, his own OS should he or she decide to? And
> they call that progress? I call it going backwards here. If this is[/color]
what[color=blue]
> I'm gonna face in 20 years, I'll be making endless copies of DOS Linux and
> maybe OS/2 so that I have the choice to do what I want. (note that I[/color]
didn't[color=blue]
> mention Windows ;-)
>[/color]

No. I'm not saying that. The "limits" of my view are bounded by BUSINESS (ie
commercial) application development. I don't know what will happen in
programming research labs (and, to be blunt, I'm not really
interested...ho pefully, there will be some exciting developments, that will
eventually trickle through to commerce, but that isn't where my particular
personal interest lies.)
[color=blue]
> Here's my view of things, from my point of view, so you can't sue me for
> saying this...hehehe.
>
> We haven't even begun to touch the tip of the iceburg into what we can do[/color]
as[color=blue]
> far as software development goes. And while microsoft seems to be amazed[/color]
by[color=blue]
> it's Windows, Where it's been, where it is now, and where's it's going to
> be, since about 3 to 4 thousand programmers went into the making of[/color]
Windows,[color=blue]
> I'm not impressed by those results. This having been said, So far, all
> we've done for all these decades, is make the computer do that we dont[/color]
want[color=blue]
> to do. (Hefty calculations, any repetitive tasks, games (not for the same
> reasons of course :-). But we haven't even begun to tap into the[/color]
potential[color=blue]
> that's ahead of us.
>[/color]

I would agree with the above. The question is HOW we unleash this potential
in the future. I believe it won't be by Procedural code. (There are many
reasons for this... and I am NOT suggesting that NO-ONE will be writing
procedural code. It just won't be commercially viable to develop business
solutions in this way. In fact, it isn't even today. It's just that there
has been no alternative for 40 years...)
[color=blue]
> To me What you are suggesting is that we let the others come up with the[/color]
new[color=blue]
> stuff, give the users the ability adjust/change what the user did through
> the use of somewhat flexible modules, and that's it for the programmer?[/color]
I'm[color=blue]
> thinking much longer term than that. After this step of yours happens, do
> you really think that everything will have been made that can be made in[/color]
the[color=blue]
> whole computer industry?[/color]

No, that is pushing my argument beyond its limits and I couldn't defend such
a position. I am not speculating on the "whole computer industry", only
commercial systems development.

[color=blue]
> I beg to differ, as this approach the the future
> of computing is one of many thousands of avenues, and I'm not saying[/color]
there's[color=blue]
> only that way out of it, even if this ever gets made, it wont close the[/color]
door[color=blue]
> to the rest of the potentials that still are, to date, untouched.
>
> But that's my vision of it, once your implementation exists and is stable,
> do you think the users, ever so evolving as you say (which I do have to
> agree that they are) will stay contended with this? that they wont want
> more? Give a man an inch, he'll take foot, etc etc etc....I dont seen[/color]
that[color=blue]
> human behavior stopping anytime soon. To stop that human behavior, we[/color]
might[color=blue]
> as well stop populating since after 5 billion people we can safely assume
> we've conceived every possible kind of human being? not at all :-). far
> from it. And the same goes for programming. Your view is one of many
> parralel views, views that will all equally evolve, each in their own
> specific ways, each towards very specific and unique goals. And as long[/color]
as[color=blue]
> they are computers, there will be programmers.[/color]

The question is whether those "programmer s" will be human... We already have
computers that monitor computers. In heuristic systems, programs modify
themselves so fast that the only way to know what happened is to monitor it
with another computer. While this is outside the arena I have defined for my
speculation, it is interesting and fun to look at.

I see a time when some programs will attain a result (based on trial and
error and a program modifying itself several trillion times within a few
minutes) where it will not be (humanly) possible to know HOW it arrived at
the solution. We'll just be thankful we HAVE a solution. There will be no
way of knowing whether the solution is optimum. The best we could do is run
the program again and hope for a shorter result...

This means a computer will attain a result and NO-ONE will know HOW it did
it.

As a Programmer, you may find this an exciting prospect, or you may find it
terrifying. (personally, I'm in the former category). No matter how you feel
about it, it will happen (has already, actually...).

Your statement regarding computers and programmers may be suspect.

[color=blue]
> And programming languages
> that will range from low level to high level. The way Pascal is adjusting
> to the current reality of development, I dont fear that it can adapt to[/color]
any[color=blue]
> new programming concept we can throw at it. It's been doign great at
> adapting thus far.
>
> Remember, software development is not a user only oriented concept. :-) at
> least not in my book.
>
> And that's my 0.02 cents worth :-)....(ok maybe there's a couple dollars[/color]
in[color=blue]
> there instead :-).
>[/color]
I have tried to give you some return on your investment...<G >

Pete.

[Bent C Dalager]

Re: Future reuse of code

In article <bhgma5$dhe$1@p anix1.panix.com >, <docdwarf@panix .com> wrote:[color=blue]
>In article <bhgj3v$1nq$1@t yfon.itea.ntnu. no>,
>Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.n o> wrote:[color=green]
>>In article <bhg685$97i$1@p anix1.panix.com >, <docdwarf@panix .com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>If the statements in question are the result of mere ignorance then they
>>>lack the intentionality which is required of a lie... or am I missing
>>>something?[/color]
>>
>>You seem to be missing the fact that it was a flame. Logic and correct
>>use of vocabulary are non-issues in that context.[/color]
>
>Ahhhh, *now* I understand... thanks greatly, you... you poopie-head, you!
>
>(did I do that right?)[/color]

I certainly appreciate the effort, but you could do with some work on
the execution :-)

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:29:07 +0000 (UTC), Marco van de Voort
<marcov@stack.n l> wrote or quoted :
[color=blue]
>- First there must be a Java implementation
>- Second there must be a *full* java implementation.[/color]

The big advantage is you have is Sun's licensing. Basically if its is
called J2SE you can COUNT on classes and methods being there, and
working in a standard way. EVERY J2SE has these.

I argued for a such standard class libraries back in 1986 October in
an article in Byte Magazine. It is huge help no matter where you go
to have the same interfaces to deal with. You are not starting from
scratch with different tools for every project. With Java they are
effectively built into the language. You can count on them just as
strongly as you can count on +. That is not true with C++. Chances
are any given tool WON'T be supported on a particular platform. Each
tool handles only a handful of platforms. J2SE handles EVERYTHING
that handled claims to be J2SE, which is basically any Java desktop or
bigger.

Platform independent code happens naturally with almost no effort in
Java. It is requires considerable effort in C++. You can't convince
me otherwise because I have done both.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:02:16 GMT, Kevin Easton
<kevin@-nospam-pcug.org.au> wrote or quoted :
[color=blue]
>People who *think* they need an exact-width type, rather than an
>at-least width type, are usually wrong.[/color]

But then people write code thinking of only their own platform where
int is say 32 bits, and hand it to someone else whose int is 16 bits.
It does not work. It requires foresight and a macro to make that
code work on both platforms. It is thus foolish to claim C or C++
works naturally multiplatform. It requires extra effort.

Look at something like one of the GNU compilers which you would think
would naturally without ANY effort be platform independent. It has
ZILCH in the way of user interface. Then go look at the zillions of
config tweakings and macros you need to handle platform differences.

Think back a few years to all the near/far pointer crap you had to
deal with on Windows 3.1. That certainly did not port automatically
anywhere else.

You are defending C++ as if you were defending your favoured football
team, with emotional loyalty, giving it imaginary virtues, and
imagining it would be impossible for it to be anything less than all
things to all people. C is a portable assembler. That's where it
reigns supreme. Partly because of that distinction it NECESSARILY
can't be high level and highly platform independent.



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Peter E.C. Dashwood]

Re: Future reuse of code


"Stephane Richard" <stephane.richa rd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OzB_a.2738 $jw4.1234@nwrdn y03.gnilink.net ...[color=blue]
> Quoted: " SQL Server for example has a "drag and drop" tool that allows
> processing streams to be built in minutes. These same streams using
> procedural code would take days."
>
> funny, me in 15 years, I dont see microsoft in the picture. ;-)
>[/color]

I said that about IBM in 1984...<G>

(No, I didn't really... but they almost lost the company when they produced
a small computer that was universally available, dispelled a lot of the
"Myth and Magic" that surrounded computer technology at the time, and put
computing within the reach of everybody. Ironically, prior to that they had
behaved in a very bad way on numerous occasions and were perceived very much
as MicroSoft is today...the one time they did something really good and
noble, it pushed them into loss for the first time in decades...)

I know it is very fashionable to beat up MicroSoft, but if all of us were
fair and resonable, could put aside our consuming envy of the wealth of Bill
Gates, could forgive all the times we faced the Blue Screen Of Death (and
see it as part of the natural evolution of PC technology), I have a feeling
that we could then acknowledge that WITHOUT MicroSoft the World would be a
very different place.

Pete.