Showing messages 1 through 36 of 36.

• Java language
  2008-07-25 01:23:47 johnsmith356 [Reply | View]
  
  We have enough problems with Java mobile development already. Not all phones support all the same Java standards, so there is no guarantee that the same software will run on multiple devices, as the “write once, run anywhere” Java tagline promises. Now Android is going to create more problems than solving. With this, programmers will have a new breed of Java to develop mobile applications, those cannot be ported to any device except Android powered phones.
  ---------------------------------
  johnsmith
  Did you see it? One more time? You won't get faked out here!
  
  http://www.SelectWealthSystem.com/?t=wc
  http://www.SelectWealthSystem.com/?t=wc

• Scala
  2007-07-28 14:23:23 eokyere [Reply | View]
  
  +1

• LINQ
  2007-01-31 15:05:38 hchaudh1 [Reply | View]
  
  OK, so this is not a language, but I would like to see LINQ like features in Java.

• Scala
  2007-01-31 09:19:23 rafaeldff [Reply | View]
  
  +=1

• Scala
  2007-01-31 09:19:16 rafaeldff [Reply | View]
  
  +=1

• Scala
  2007-01-31 08:29:10 walterc [Reply | View]
  
  +10

• Scala
  2007-01-31 08:28:06 walterc [Reply | View]
  
  +10

• VB or Excel macros
  2007-01-31 08:17:04 malcolmdavis [Reply | View]
  
  One of the most common, if not the most common, script language used is Excel. Talk to almost any accountant or business type, and they will have written Excel macros. Excel macros use to be taught as a course in Business school, and still might. [Some reports have said that there are more lines of code in Excel, then any other language, even more then COBAL]
  
  If I want to expose my application to business individuals, I want them to use a syntax they know and are comfortable.

• Scala, JRuby, Groovy, Scheme, F3 ...
  2007-01-31 00:22:00 simonreid [Reply | View]
  
  Scala, JRuby, Groovy, Scheme, F3 ...
  
  Regarding the future of languages on the JVM, I hope that:
  
  1) more dynamic and/or weakly-typed languages gain a strong user-base on the JVM. (Obviously I'm not alone there!)
  
  2) at the same time, Java retains its static, strongly-typed character. I don't want to see inconsistent new syntax tacked onto Java, resulting in a Perl-like "too-many ways to do it" mess. If people want closures, great (I do), why not use Groovy or JRuby? (If backwards-compatibility allowed, I would actually like to see Java become more strict - eg. variables declared private and final by default).
  
  3) that with the current rapid improvements in performance, Desktop APIs and the JSR-296 Swing Application Framework, Swing becomes the GUI Toolkit of choice for languages like (J)Ruby and (now that Sun's Java implementation is GPL) maybe even Python (in the form of Jython). Now that would be interesting ...
• Scala, JRuby, Groovy, Scheme, F3 ...
  2007-01-31 21:03:12 tompalmer [Reply | View]
  
  Closures have nothing to do with static vs. dynamic typing. I think we all agree that Java itself should stay static. But some of us would like closures, too, instead of having to continue doing insane code duplication or workarounds. I'm also a big TOOWTDI person, and closures (ideally with continuations for turning things into external generators) are the way to do it.
• Scala, JRuby, Groovy, Scheme, F3 ...
  2007-02-02 05:41:10 simonreid [Reply | View]
  
  I apologize for my poorly worded comment. I do realize that:
  1) Closures are a completely separate issue from static -v- dynamic typing.
  2) A Java without strong and static typing would simply not be Java.
  
  What I really should have said was:
  I don't want to see features from other languages - be they dynamic (Ruby, Groovy), static (C#) or otherwise (SQL) - bolted onto Java in an unsympathetic manner. Also I don't want to see Java's syntax relaxed for the sake of convenience. For me, these would make doing things in Java in the most simple, robust, consistant, secure and performant way, less intuitive.
  
  In general, it might be safer to let Java be Java and let new languages provide new features ... I feel this way because I was disappointed by the compile-time only implementation of Generics - the added complexity did not seem worth it due to the compromises made. So I wonder how well other new features can be retrofitted into Java when breaking backward-compatibility is not an option ...
  
  Regarding Closures: I wish they had been in Java from the start - they would have been much neater and much more powerful than Inner Classes ... if they can be implemented without introducing unintutive special cases, then I hope they make it into Java 7 ... though I would regret that Java would become less TOOWTDI because Inner Classes can be used (less neatly) in places where it would be be neater to use Closures ...
  
  To end with unambiguously positive note: with Sun's Java going GPL and the growing support of "Non-Java" languages on the JVM, this feels like really exciting time for the Java Platform ...
• C, E, Fortress, Fortan, and Beanshell
  2007-01-31 05:55:00 coxcu [Reply | View]
  
  Yes, yes, and yes. I would also add C, E, Fortress, Fortan, and Beanshell to your list.
• C, E, Fortress, Fortan, and Beanshell
  2007-01-31 14:04:03 simonreid [Reply | View]
  
  Yeah BeanShell deserves a mention. While developing, I often keep a BeanShell console open for simple on-the-fly experimenting - to see whether things behave as I think they will from reading the API doc ...
  
  And I when I find the time, I will be taking Fortress for a spin ...

• bash
  2007-01-30 10:32:37 weberjn [Reply | View]
  
  System scripts in Java ...

• Groovy and Grails
  2007-01-29 15:14:13 bertrandg [Reply | View]
  
  Recently I discovered the fabulous Groovy language and its killer application Grails (an agile web framework).
  Vote to Groovy !
  
  Bertrand Goetzmann (odelia technologies)
• Groovy and Grails
  2007-03-03 21:58:48 tessaract2139 [Reply | View]
  
  I just picked it up as well and bought both books. I am studying now to try and make it useful in my work. I think it is going to be a terrific tool.

• C. OCaml or Haskell. The K language. Lisp. Fortran.
  2007-01-29 12:04:20 ramayer [Reply | View]
  
  IMHO we don't need any more OO-lite languages (like the ones listed) because we already have Java which does a reasonable job at filling the niche that the listed languages already do.
  
  Rather I'd see a language that excells at a different paradigm - perhaps a functional one like OCaml or Haskell - perhaps one good at low level tasks like C - perhaps one that's still well suited for AI like Lisp - perhaps one well suited to numerical processing like Fortran which still has the most comprehensive numerical libraries that I know of.
  
  If it weren't for the very small niche that would appreciate it, I'd most prefer the K language
  http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/11/14/22741/791
  which IMHO is the most productive (in code written vs results) language that I know of and in wide use in the financial community (http://www.kx.com/company/customers.php)

• C. OCaml or Haskell. The K language. Lisp. Fortran.
  2007-01-29 12:04:11 ramayer [Reply | View]
  
  IMHO we don't need any more OO-lite languages (like the ones listed) because we already have Java which does a reasonable job at filling the niche that the listed languages already do.
  
  Rather I'd see a language that excells at a different paradigm - perhaps a functional one like OCaml or Haskell - perhaps one good at low level tasks like C - perhaps one that's still well suited for AI like Lisp - perhaps one well suited to numerical processing like Fortran which still has the most comprehensive numerical libraries that I know of.
  
  If it weren't for the very small niche that would appreciate it, I'd most prefer the K language
  http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/11/14/22741/791
  which IMHO is the most productive (in code written vs results) language that I know of and in wide use in the financial community (http://www.kx.com/company/customers.php)

• What about Scala?
  2007-01-29 06:00:39 david_pollak [Reply | View]
  
  Let's list Scala in the languages we most like to run in the JVM!

• What about BeanShell and F3 ?
  2007-01-29 02:50:23 dfuchs [Reply | View]
  
  

• Delphi or Object Pascal ?
  2007-01-29 01:34:15 rohitk [Reply | View]
  
  Would it be possible to implement a language that uses pointers? If so, it would be wonderful to be able to use Delphi or Object Pascal in conjunction with Java.

• Pnuts
  2007-01-29 01:26:39 tomatsu [Reply | View]
  
  http://pnuts.dev.java.net/

• Other languages?
  2007-01-28 23:30:27 znmeb [Reply | View]
  
  Scheme, of course!!

• BeanShell is missing
  2007-01-27 04:34:34 aehrenr [Reply | View]
  
  Despite all the talking on scripting languages I only see an advantage in BeanShell as a kind of hands on Java.
  Once I often used Perl, but never again, since Java added regular expressions.
  Other scripting languages just are not my thing. I tried Ruby and Python. They have nice ideas, but then why learn all these new idioms. I invest my time and interest in Java APIs :-)
  It is better to know one thing very well than to know many variations to achieve the same thing.
  I am no computer scientist, but use computer programming just as a tool for science and as a hobby

• C# maybe
  2007-01-26 23:52:36 jwenting [Reply | View]
  
  I might be interested in a C# implementation that runs in a JVM, but little else.
  
  Scripting languages just aren't my thing and VB? (brrrrr).
• C# maybe
  2007-01-29 01:30:57 rohitk [Reply | View]
  
  I would also be very interested in C#.
• C# maybe
  2007-01-28 20:20:05 snookerdoodle [Reply | View]
  
  I agree, too - or, better yet, Smalltalk!
• C# maybe
  2007-01-27 05:37:56 bvansomeren [Reply | View]
  
  I concur, C# could be a really nice language to use next to Java and the plethora of scripting languages for the lighter work.
  The C# spec itself (the language spec, not the classlibs) are defined in an open standard, right?
• C# maybe
  2007-01-29 05:47:00 jwenting [Reply | View]
  
  yes, C# is an ISO candidate (maybe approved already) AFAIK.

• Scala
  2007-01-26 18:33:45 tim_dalton [Reply | View]
  
  Scala

• VB
  2007-01-26 08:48:49 fcmmok [Reply | View]
  
  VB...
  But the project is dead.....

• If it runs on the JVM, it's not a non-Java language
  2007-01-26 04:24:16 valstadsve [Reply | View]
  
  <P>Am I right? Once it runs, it is either being interpreted in Java, in which case you're running Java, or it is bytecode. The bytecode and the JVM are integral parts of Java. So even if the source code was not in "the Java language" (as we formally call it), it's not a NON-Java language either.</P>
  
  <P>OK, it's semantics... and syntax, of course.</P>
• If it runs on the JVM, it's not a non-Java language
  2007-01-28 22:02:44 headius [Reply | View]
  
  Then I guess by that logic all scripting languages written in C are actually C languages. Or perhaps they're assembly language dialects?
  
  The JVM is a machine. Bytecodes are its instructions. An implementation of a language for the JVM is just as non-Java as an implementation for x86 is non-assembly.
• If it runs on the JVM, it's not a non-Java language
  2007-01-26 07:05:20 fabriziogiudici [Reply | View]
  
  The term Java, among other things, designates both the language and the platform. So the title is correct and should be meant as "what non-Java language would you like to see running in the Java platform?"

• The oldie is still a goodie...
  2007-01-26 04:10:03 alski [Reply | View]
  
  ...BeanShell.

• Fortress
  2007-01-26 03:31:32 lorenzhawkes [Reply | View]
  
  http://fortress.sunsource.net/