Server Help

D1st0rt · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:10 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

If you have a lot of little squares, you can make a circle. Draw a circle in paint and zoom in.
_________________

Mine GO BOOM · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:17 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

No, thats a pixelated object that is perceived as a circle. Try using any vector graphics programs, draw a circle, and zoom in.

Dr Brain · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:12 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

Java is meant to be a secure programming language where malicious or bad programs cannot crash/destroy the computer.

It is also meant to help the programmer rapidly develop in a better than C++ way. The language is very clean.

It doesn't fail at either of these goals. If you're thinking that Java was meant for applets, I can see why you might think it failed.
_________________
Hyperspace Owner

Smong> so long as 99% deaths feel lame it will always be hyperspace to me

Dr Brain · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:13 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

If each square is a point, then it would take pi without the decimal point squares to make a circle of any size.

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:21 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

My point is that it's possible to improve something without "re-inventing" it, which is what C does. It's also possible to completely re-invent it, which is what Java did with its bytecode.

I'd say it's something more like C is a screwdriver where you can add on any head that you'd like, it's just a bit of work. Java is a screwdriver where it's very easy to add heads but, let's say, they have a strange gear arrangement that makes the user (the computer) work much harder to operate the screwdriver.
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him.

Dr Brain · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:09 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

No, the flathead screwdriver gives you more tourqe applied to the screw than phillips, but the phillips driver doesn't slip out of the screw head and mar your surface like a flat head will. That was my analogy, and I think it's a good one.

You're picking up on Java's speed issues, which tells me you aren't talking about the language anymore. If you want to talk about the JVM implementation, then that's fine with me, but let me know first.

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:43 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

The fact that you can't even consider Java a programming language without some kind of interpreter automatically involves the interpreter in the discussion.

Heck, if that wasn't true, I could say my thoughts are the best programming language ever. All I'd need is an interpreter.

Dr Brain · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:13 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

You don't need a JVM on a Java based processor.

You don't need a JVM if you compile to machine code rather than bytecode.

If you want to talk about the JVM, fine, but it isn't required for one to code in Java

Bak · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:28 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

I didn't know they made java based processors yet?

Dr Brain · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:02 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

They've been around almost as long as the language has.

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:30 am *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

Well that's essentially ignoring one of the purposes of Java: cross-platform?

Dr Brain · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:24 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

How is it ignoring it, exactly? The processor's machine code IS Java bytecode. The same Java bytecode that is interpreted by JVMs into native machine code.

Mine GO BOOM · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:33 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

D1st0rt · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:41 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

where do you get these pictures from?

Purge · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:17 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

His house.

SuSE · Me measures good Joined: Dec 02 2002 Posts: 2307 Offline

Mine GO BOOM · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:19 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:24 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

Purge · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:10 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

SuSE · Me measures good Joined: Dec 02 2002 Posts: 2307 Offline

Purge · Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:08 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

No worries. I still don't think my sig is stupid.

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:56 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

SuSE · Me measures good Joined: Dec 02 2002 Posts: 2307 Offline

Windows? What? Let's keep it to languages.

Dr Brain · Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:05 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

You haven't a clue about sloppy and inefficient until you've seen x86 assembly.

The Java based processors run a hardware interpreter, yes. But, then again, heh, so do all modern CISC processors (including the beloved Pentiums). They're all built on top of highly efficient RISC processing machines.

So, I'm saying that x86 machine code has to be "interpreted or you need to buy a x86-specific processor." What a great language.

Please, don't talk about problems that the language you yourself are defending has to a larger degree. There are very few fully funtional x86 emulators. There are fully operational Java JVMs for almost every platform.

I'd much prefer to talk about the language itself rather than it's implementation, but everyone seems to be drawn to the myth of Java's "slowness". However, if you feel you can make headway on the implementation argument against someone like me, who studies computer architecture, feel free. I could use a good debate.