Talk:Java (programming language)/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:47, 19 April 2007

Latest revision as of 12:05, 30 September 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

== Audience and Context. ==

Line 15 ⟶ 17:

thanks

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pdc&gsc|Pdc&gsc]] ([[User talk:Pdc&gsc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pdc&gsc|contribs]]) 00:10, 3 October 2004</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

{{unsigned2|00:10, 3 October 2004|Pdc&gsc}}

== Split this up, JRE & JDK seperated ==

Line 27 ⟶ 29:

== JVM and JRE ==

What is the differences between them ??. :-? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:84.121.3.242|84.121.3.242]] ([[User talk:84.121.3.242|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.121.3.242|contribs]]) 12:41, 8 November 2004</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

What is the differences between them ??. :-? {{unsigned2|12:41, 8 November 2004|84.121.3.242}}

: 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. [[User:Smyth|&ndash; [[User:Smyth|Smyth]]]] 13:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Line 37 ⟶ 39:

== Responses to the Java Language is outdated ==

The complaints about collections and casting etc in this section are out of date with the generics & auto-unboxing in v1.5 (which are discussed in following section) and I can't see any other point in that section but have a feeling that if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? {{unsigned2<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jaybee|Jaybee]] ([[User talk:Jaybee|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jaybee|contribs]]) 18:30, 12 November 2004|Jaybee}}</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: 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. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 18:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Line 53 ⟶ 55:

<blockquote>Java is an object-oriented programming language developed primarily by Sun Microsystems. Gosling and friends initially designed Java, which was called Oak at first (in honour of the trees outside Gosling's office), to replace C++, although the feature set better resembles that of Objective C.</blockquote>

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:129.97.152.114|129.97.152.114]] ([[User talk:129.97.152.114|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/129.97.152.114|contribs]]) 03:47, 23 November 2004</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

{{unsigned2|03:47, 23 November 2004|129.97.152.114}}

== Pronunciation, Round 2 ==

Line 63 ⟶ 65:

:: Same here, I would pronounce it {{IPA|/&#x2c8;d&#x292;'''&#x251;'''v&#x259;/}}, not {{IPA|/&#x2c8;d&#x292;'''&#xe6;'''v&#x259;/}}. [[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]]) 07:51, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

:::My bad, I thought the majority was for "short" "a". {{unsigned2<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Unixxx|Unixxx]] ([[User talk:Unixxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Unixxx|contribs]]) 08:09, 14 January 2005|Unixxx}}</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: While probably not common amongst English speakers, I've heard Java pronounced as {{IPA|/java/}} (in the Netherlands and Poland) (ie. English spelling 'yava'), matching local pronounciation of the coffee-bean. How consistant is this with the Javanese pronounciation? And how common is this pronounciation in europe? (ie, in German) {{unsigned2|03<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:03,Signatures|unsigned]] 1comment Februaryadded 2005by [[User:80.178.219.176|80.178.219.176}}]] ([[User talk:80.178.219.176|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/80.178.219.176|contribs]]) 03:03, 1 February 2005</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:: It's probably needless to say, but in japan "java" becomes jyaba. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 17:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Line 75 ⟶ 77:

- the Java Community Process ?

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:70.114.249.148|70.114.249.148]] ([[User talk:70.114.249.148|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.114.249.148|contribs]]) 05:12, 27 February 2005</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

{{unsigned2|05:12, 27 February 2005|70.114.249.148}}

== [[Strictfp]] ==

Line 121 ⟶ 123:

**[[JDeveloper | Oracle JDeveloper]]

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:212.114.231.48|212.114.231.48]] ([[User talk:212.114.231.48|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/212.114.231.48|contribs]]) 14:48, 13 July 2005</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

{{unsigned2|14:48, 13 July 2005|212.114.231.48}}

: 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? [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 143 ⟶ 145:

I've pulled the following paragraph from the section on interfaces and classes (sorry I forgot to sign in before making the change):

<blockquote>Methods defined by an interface are implicitly <ttcode>public</ttcode> and <ttcode>abstract</ttcode>. Fields defined by an interface are implicitly <ttcode>public</ttcode>, <ttcode>static</ttcode>, and <ttcode>final</ttcode>.</blockquote>

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. [[User:Mark Harrison|Mark Harrison]] 06:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Line 155 ⟶ 157:

Other bad examples include the deleteAll method. It should use a List instead of an array and should use a for each loop.

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:207.58.192.123|207.58.192.123]] ([[User talk:207.58.192.123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.58.192.123|contribs]]) 20:36, 22 August 2005</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

{{unsigned2|20:36, 22 August 2005|207.58.192.123}}

== TOCleft ==

Line 253 ⟶ 255:

: 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. [[User:The Hokkaido Crow|The Hokkaido Crow]] 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

== Properties ==

Hi. In an attempt to clarify what I thought was one of the other editors' objections to Java I wrote this:

<blockquote>Properties &mdash; public fields that are tied to code rather than directly to data &mdash; are not supported in Java. A more verbose convention involving get and set methods is popular and has substantial tool support.</blockquote>

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?

[[User:Ben Arnold|Ben Arnold]] 22:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)