What does your desk look like?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I actually like Java on the server side. It's just Adobe on Java, it sounds bad.
Agreed. But Adobe didn't create it. They just acquired it when they bought Macromedia, along with a handful of other wares, like Dreamweaver. Someone buying something doesn't make it bad. I assure you it's still extremely good at what it does.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, client side Java was a horrible idea from the beginning. But server side is actually excellent. Especially when you add Scala, Clojure or the like.
Lazy programers like it since it's not native. No porting needed. I hate it. It's talk in colleges as one of the best languages a lot. That it's better than VB or C++
Java? It's IS a lot better than VB. That's easy. C++ and Java rarely play in the same space. Java isn't for the lazy, it's one of the most advanced platforms out there. Lots of effort but crazy power. Java is taught because it remains the leading language for enterprise development. And it is powerful. There is a reason why Java is used heavily for the high demand trading applications and other super fast stuff.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller Me too, client side Java sucks. The first version of AOL AIM was coded in Java... Swing is so terrible.
Totally agree with you here. Any interface period w/ Java is just a nightmare
. It's amazing as a serverware platform though, which is why 10,000 things all compile to Java now. -
@creayt said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@creayt Oh, no I wasn't, cfScript is vastly better. Admittedly my experience with CF is about 8 or so years out of date, but due to licensing, availability, and other issues I never consider it really. Full disclosure, I've always hated XML as well, and we use JSON or BSON for all of our transport/storage stuff in house where possible over XML. You may love ColdFusion, but I certainly do not, and I think that's fine.
It's not vastly better. That's like saying that an airplane is "vastly better" than a helicopter. They're two different beasts with different purposes, they each do certain things extremely well. I hate XML too. Good thing ColdFusion has literally nothing at all to do with XML except that it's able to parse, generate, and work with it extremely easily, the same way it can with JSON, and a zillion other things.
I guarantee you that if you and I sat down and created an identical product, and you saw that ColdFusion let me do it in about a third of the time it took you, and in a way that's actually more fun and flexible, you might love it too haha. I started out with PHP, which got me really excited about web development, and I still write PHP from time to time, helped my GF construct some objects from a MySQL query and serialize them to JSON in PHP the other day ( she was reimagining an example from a book she was reading ). When we were done we wrote the same code in ColdFusion, and it was something like 75% fewer lines of code. PHP has some strengths, but I've never met a PHP developer who could offer much more than "a lot of companies use it and there are a lot of things already written in PHP" as a competitive advantage. As far as the syntax, I mean Jesus. If you want to talk terrible syntax, PHP wins that contest by a mile.
Yeah, but that's the same conversation that the Python, Ruby, Node.js, Scala, Clojure, etc. people have about PHP. PHP is okay, but all of them talk about how much faster the development is in anything but PHP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, client side Java was a horrible idea from the beginning. But server side is actually excellent. Especially when you add Scala, Clojure or the like.
Lazy programers like it since it's not native. No porting needed. I hate it. It's talk in colleges as one of the best languages a lot. That it's better than VB or C++
Java? It's IS a lot better than VB. That's easy. C++ and Java rarely play in the same space. Java isn't for the lazy, it's one of the most advanced platforms out there. Lots of effort but crazy power. Java is taught because it remains the leading language for enterprise development. And it is powerful. There is a reason why Java is used heavily for the high demand trading applications and other super fast stuff.
Huh? I was talking about client side. I'm not sure how you classify that as fast or better than VB/VB.net.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You have to beat your boss at AoE2 to get a promotion.
Better yet beat the 3 senior NTG people and you can get a promotion (that will keep my from paying any pay increases). @art_of_shred @scottalanmiller and I one team.
I'll take you all on Super Smash Bros N64.
-
This post is deleted! -
@nadnerB said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You have to beat your boss at AoE2 to get a promotion.
Better yet beat the 3 senior NTG people and you can get a promotion (that will keep my from paying any pay increases). @art_of_shred @scottalanmiller and I one team.
I'll take you all on Super Smash Bros N64.
NES Super Mario!
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Huh? I was talking about client side. I'm not sure how you classify that as fast or better than VB/VB.net.
Oh, client side. Java and VB both land in the "worthless as shit" pile there. Can't imagine worse languages.
C++ is useless as a desktop language too. These are horrible examples for desktop. No one should use any of those.
C# for Windows native, C for Linux native, Objective-C for Mac native. But native doesn't make much sense for the majority of cases. That's just a huge waste of effort.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
Edit: WebStorm does node.js well, that's what we use it for.
Downloading it as we speak btw, I'm excited. Looks like I picked up my license back in 2012, I might need to re-up.
-
@creayt said:
It's not vastly better. That's like saying that an airplane is "vastly better" than a helicopter. They're two different beasts with different purposes, they each do certain things extremely well.
But they are, airplanes can go further, faster, and higher than helicopters, and carry more weight. If you want to measure them differently, of course you can find reasons why each are their own beasts, but from a syntax perspective cfScript is better, and it (I assume) allows separation of concerns, where as the other is just mixed right in.
I hate XML too. Good thing ColdFusion has literally nothing at all to do with XML except that it's able to parse, generate, and work with it extremely easily, the same way it can with JSON, and a zillion other things.
That was a reference to the fact that regular CF is similar to XML syntax.
I guarantee you that if you and I sat down and created an identical product, and you saw that ColdFusion let me do it in about a third of the time it took you, and in a way that's actually more fun and flexible, you might love it too haha.
Possibly, I am open minded.
I started out with PHP, which got me really excited about web development, and I still write PHP from time to time, helped my GF construct some objects from a MySQL query and serialize them to JSON in PHP the other day ( she was reimagining an example from a book she was reading ).
I was really confused at this first, GF and CF look too similar, lol.
When we were done we wrote the same code in ColdFusion, and it was something like 75% fewer lines of code. PHP has some strengths, but I've never met a PHP developer who could offer much more than "a lot of companies use it and there are a lot of things already written in PHP" as a competitive advantage.
PHP is widely supported, but has a lot of power from the perspective of developing large projects, separating concerns, and interacting with a lot of outside things -- are there a lot of enterprise projects built with CF? I can't think of any, doesn't mean they don't exist of course, I assume some do, but there's a reason it's not first choice. PHP's also a lot faster (primarily with opcaching), plus also I can find more PHP developers, and the rest is mostly just preference based, and things I feel are better for me you likely do not for you.
As far as the syntax, I mean Jesus. If you want to talk terrible syntax, PHP wins that contest by a mile.
I like C-style syntax, though, I find it easier to read, and the syntax isn't too dissimilar from cfScript from the looks of it, and in fact cfScript looks almost identical to JavaScript. Is it a reimplementation, just designed based on it, or is it compliant like ActionScript?
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@creayt said:
It's not vastly better. That's like saying that an airplane is "vastly better" than a helicopter. They're two different beasts with different purposes, they each do certain things extremely well.
But they are, airplanes can go further, faster, and higher than helicopters, and carry more weight. If you want to measure them differently, of course you can find reasons why each are their own beasts, but from a syntax perspective cfScript is better, and it (I assume) allows separation of concerns, where as the other is just mixed right in.
No, they're not. Airplanes are fantastic for transporting mass quantities of people across the globe, but they're terrible for maneuvering into tight spots and shuttling someone that's dying to a hospital, for example. Different problems, I promise.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
That was a reference to the fact that regular CF is similar to XML syntax.
That's my point. It's not. It's a lot closer to HTML than XML, hence its unparalleledly good integration with HTML.
-
@creayt said:
No, they're not. Airplanes are fantastic for transporting mass quantities of people across the globe, but they're terrible for maneuvering into tight spots and shuttling someone that's dying to a hospital, for example. Different problems, I promise.
Of course, and that's what I said, if you want to measure them differently, but as far as flying machines go, if we measure based on overall qualities planes are better. If we break it down into "which is better for this specific task" then things change, and there are situations where not even helicopters can get in, due to powerlines, close buildings, etc.
-
@creayt said:
That's my point. It's not. It's a lot closer to HTML than XML, hence its unparalleledly good integration with HTML.
See, but I consider that a weakness. Separation of concerns is important, especially as projects get larger, and become harder to maintain. I can see how for many projects it wouldn't be a bad thing though, especially smaller ones.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
PHP's also a lot faster (primarily with opcaching)
Wait, what? Where did you hear that? I would bet money that I can take almost any PHP code you have, rewrite it in ColdFusion, and run it on identical hardware and have it just mercilessly dominate PHP's peformance. ColdFusion has a giant, beautiful array of caching options and uses Ehcache under the covers. I'd be interested to read what you read that made it sound like PHP can even hold a candle to Java performacewise. Didn't Facebook even write something to take their PHP, expressly because it's slow, and convert it to C++ or something?
-
I don't know but didn't FogCreek make something to convert their VBScript into PHP?
Bwahahahaha
Sorry, had to be mentioned.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
I like C-style syntax, though, I find it easier to read, and the syntax isn't too dissimilar from cfScript from the looks of it, and in fact cfScript looks almost identical to JavaScript. Is it a reimplementation, just designed based on it, or is it compliant like ActionScript?
I'm mostly referring to the absolutely schizophrenicish naming of things, from what I remember from my PHP days. Underscores here, weird choices there, etc. One of the things that I adored about the move from PHP to CF is that I had to consult the docs so, so much less, because of the language design, it's extremely guessable a lot of the time, so as I was learning it I was literally able to just guess function names and they'd be right, instead of having to Google every 8 seconds.
-
Ha ha.... ready?
PHP on Java: http://quercus.caucho.com/
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@creayt said:
No, they're not. Airplanes are fantastic for transporting mass quantities of people across the globe, but they're terrible for maneuvering into tight spots and shuttling someone that's dying to a hospital, for example. Different problems, I promise.
Of course, and that's what I said, if you want to measure them differently, but as far as flying machines go, if we measure based on overall qualities planes are better. If we break it down into "which is better for this specific task" then things change, and there are situations where not even helicopters can get in, due to powerlines, close buildings, etc.
Better for what? Some things, not others, do you get what I mean?
You can do separation of concerns either way. The tag-based version fully supports OO programming. You can use one or the other for specific use cases for the advantages and/or weaknesses of each option specific to that particular problem. I fundamentally disagree with you that airplanes are better than helicopters. I think helicopters are better and full of more individual utility overall, but airplanes are better at some things, and extremely easy to pilot. I've never driven a helicopter, so I can't speak to that, but I imagine it's much more difficult.
