Bak wrote: |
c++ is compiled while java is interpretted. |
Quote: |
compiled to a binary form on the fly |
Cyan~Fire wrote: | ||
Wow, that sounds a lot like interpretation to me. I guess you can argue that JIT compiling is not interpretation, but I'll still never regard Java as a compiled language. |
BDwinsAlt wrote: |
Would a python biller ever work out. That would be hot. |
Cyan~Fire wrote: | ||
Wow, that sounds a lot like interpretation to me. I guess you can argue that JIT compiling is not interpretation, but I'll still never regard Java as a compiled language. |
Cyan~Fire wrote: |
Well, Brain, there is still the major difference between hardware and software. Anyway, I am not saying that Java is inferior because it's not compiled (although I may believe that ). |
tansey wrote: |
As for the AD's comment that Java is not a more simplistic language, what does Java provide from a language perspective that C++ does not? C++ has multiple inheritance, templates (generics are not the same-- templates are turing-complete), and pointer semantics to name a few. Not to mention that in order to parse C++ you need an infinite look-ahead but parsing Java is very easy from a grammar standpoint. |
Animate Dreams wrote: |
[..]
Your first statement makes no sense. Offering the same things or different things than C++ has doesn't make either one a more simplistic language. Unless you just mean simplistic as in, Java doesn't go into classes as deeply as C++ does, in which case you should recommend C instead, since it doesn't go into classes at all. But that would be a horrible way to decide which language to learn first anyway. Besides, you could learn how to program in C++ without learning classes, if you wanted. Well, and had a teacher that was willing to teach you that way. |
tansey wrote: |
C does not have a smaller grammar than Java |
SamHughes wrote: |
The grammar isn't what makes a language simple or complicated. It's not what makes the programming language, either. Java's is as simple as C's and C++'s, except for superficial differences.
The features of a language don't decide simplicity either. Java has more "features" than, say, Haskell, but in terms of language complexity, Java is simpler. In terms of writing programs, though, Haskell is simpler. Which type of complexity are you considering? If you ask me, the most useful measurement of a language's complexity is its type and scoping systems. On this measurement, Brainfuck < Scheme < Java < C < Haskell < Perl < C++ ? PHP, where '<' reads "is simpler than", and PHP can't be compared with the others because its type system and scoping rules are imaginary. Then, a more important measurement is how good the type system is for writing big programs. |
Doc Flabby wrote: |
Anyone ever own a ti-83 I rember when i used to code games on my Ti-83 with its wierd version of basic. |
Animate Dreams wrote: |
Rofl, qBASIC automatically gets put on the end. It probably rates just under COBOL in terms of complexity. It didn't seem hard when I was little, but now, I look at the goto statements out the ass, and line numbers, and it makes me want to cry. Also, SamHughes, did you seriously say Scheme is simpler than Java, C, C++, and PHP? Scheme belongs right alongside Perl. PHP would have to be much earlier on the list... I have several friends that have picked up PHP on their own, but I know very few people that have any degree of proficiency in C without having had several classes. And I don't see how you could ever say any OOP language would be simpler than a non-OOP equivalent language(C and Java). |