Advertisement
Sorry folks. I'm a Ruby snob now.
Java requires way too much typing. And their fundamentals are pretty-much broken.
Like the original vision for a language that's moving in directions its founders didn't plan for. The original model was very much security-minded, such that the language can't be flexible enough to adapt to developers' needs.
And that's what's different about Ruby. It's designed with the USER in mind. The 'user' is the developer !! Imagine that.
So I can do the same job in Ruby with prolly 50% less coding than Java requires. And prolly 80% less documentation lookups (what a time sink). How much time I invested in becoming Java-API literate, I shudder thinking about.
Of course, Ruby can't solve all the problems Java can. Desktop apps, for example. But the point is there are languages so much better than Java, you can only hope the Man will realize the developer is the 'user'.
Java requires way too much typing. And their fundamentals are pretty-much broken.
Like the original vision for a language that's moving in directions its founders didn't plan for. The original model was very much security-minded, such that the language can't be flexible enough to adapt to developers' needs.
And that's what's different about Ruby. It's designed with the USER in mind. The 'user' is the developer !! Imagine that.
So I can do the same job in Ruby with prolly 50% less coding than Java requires. And prolly 80% less documentation lookups (what a time sink). How much time I invested in becoming Java-API literate, I shudder thinking about.
Of course, Ruby can't solve all the problems Java can. Desktop apps, for example. But the point is there are languages so much better than Java, you can only hope the Man will realize the developer is the 'user'.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Ruby > Java
Sat, October 28, 2006 - 11:08 AMI am not that familiar with Ruby.
I have seen sample code and it looks like a scripting language.
similar to Perl.
What I like a bout Java is that it is strongly typed.
It allows for easier maintenance and extensibility.
which can often be more important than how fast you can write the initial app.
what do you mean by "their fundamentals are pretty-much broken"
what are you refering to?
-
Re: Ruby > Java
Sun, October 29, 2006 - 8:32 AMyou should probably use Ruby, then.
-
Unsu...
Re: Ruby > Java
Sun, October 29, 2006 - 10:59 AMI say that you need to use the right tool for the right job...
-
Re: Ruby > Java
Mon, January 8, 2007 - 2:50 PMI dig on ruby but Java jobs are more available then ruby. I have found myself using jruby a good deal.
The JRuby developers are now employees at Sun so expect the worlds to collide. -
-
Re: Ruby > Java
Mon, January 8, 2007 - 3:18 PMThis is going to be a interesting indeed . I only had some limited exposure to ruby (ruby on rails project) , but I liked what I saw.
-
-
Re: Ruby > Java
Tue, January 9, 2007 - 1:10 PMThis is how easy it is to create a UI in JRuby
require 'java'
include_class "javax.swing.JFrame"
include_class "javax.swing.JLabel"
frame = JFrame.new()
frame.getContentPane().add(JLabel.new("This is an example."))
frame.pack()
frame.setVisible(true)
which beats both ruby and Java ui frameworks.
