0

WHo said here that he hate C , <<<< normally we cannot compare any language with one another , C may be bad for the application level programming , But C is the most better language for the Kernel programming . You just search how's the operating system kernel is written . But when you needs to mke a secure web applications , it's better to use Java , Java provides many security fetures that are built into the language . Shcuh as C++/C stack overflows are not in Java . But if you say C is worse and Java is the best , Think again . Please download a free book about java design parttens and read it to dead before you argue this idea .

Agree totally. Web applications are still better suited using Java. Only in rare circumstances when you need super high performance requirement do you turn to C++ solutions. Java design patterns should not be restricted to Java alone. Design patterns should be language independent.

An example would be I find a very close analogy between Java Swing Event Handling model with ACE Reactor design. You register with a class with defined interface and once event trigger, the appropriate methods will be callback. I believe Reactor, Proactor, Wrapper Facade, Template, Factory, Singleton etc etc design patterns are ALREADY BEING utilized in C++ Java and other languages. Sometimes we application developers use it without knowing it.

0

In my batch there were only 6 girls (20%!), all of them have become project managers in various company, but most of my other batchmates are still not project manager.

Something I have noticed with my uni course is that there are so few women on it. Is there some reason why women stay away from the best part of using a computer IE programming in java?

am I a bit strange in getting excited when I finally finish a project which I have just not understood before and then suddenly it drops like the whole using of IndexOf, Substring() etc? One of my lecturers says functional programming is better than OO programming and java is the worst OO language and says computists should be proud to be geeks. Now I certainly disagree with my lecture on his views of functional programming and his views on Java.

are any of you proud to be geeks? :-p

Also how many women are on this forum?

0

This thread really belongs in one of the lounges. It has no bearing on Java at all.

And sanzillas near-incoherent rambling that interest or competence in programming is related to lack of interest in the opposite sex is just nonsense.

0

Java design patterns should not be restricted to Java alone. Design patterns should be language independent.

Some (most) design patterns in Java are done for getting around the inherent limitations of the language. Java tends to make a big deal out of little things. Many other languages don't need them (or don't consider them anything worthy of being called a fruity name). But some basic universal patterns (like the interpreted utility language pattern ^_^) are seen elsewhere.

1

Some (most) design patterns in Java are done for getting around the inherent limitations of the language. Java tends to make a big deal out of little things. Many other languages don't need them (or don't consider them anything worthy of being called a fruity name). But some basic universal patterns (like the interpreted utility language pattern ^_^) are seen elsewhere.

Oh, and that is the reason the canonical GoF Design Patterns book used C++ and SmallTalk for their examples? To present patterns to work around limitations in Java? Sure, that makes sense.

The book was published in 1994. Java was released in 1995.

Votes + Comments
Bingo!
0

and don't forget that Java doesn't need a lot of the design patterns in the C++ and Smalltalk catalogues because it isn't plagued with things like multiple inheritance and operator overloading.

So Java makes use of some patterns that C++ doesn't while at the same time not needing a lot of patterns C++ makes use of.
According to sarehu's reasoning that makes Java the better language as it requires less patterns, not I think what he had in mind with his attempt to turn this into a language war by flaming Java :)

0

The main thing I get out of design patterns is a kind of vocabulary with which I can succinctly describe a design, helping with code documentation. A description like "Stateful-Builder, producing a Composite iterated by a Interpretor Visitor" tells a pretty clear story to me.

They are more like "viewpoints" on the design, ways to describe it, and of course, I'll refactor a little bit in order to highlight their existence - the design is not driven by them.

I think that many critics may be assuming that patterns are always some kind of target that you aim at.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.