Game programming in Java ??
T
Has anyone used Java to program games? I'm trying to decide what
programming language to use and I could do with some advice.
All the basic (Blitz and Dark) languages I have looked at seem to have good
API's for games, but I think it would be hard to write anything very big
because the debugging doesn't look very good. Also the demo's crash on my
computer. My biggest gripe with Blitz and Dark basic is that you can't tell
the compiler to force explicit vairable declarations. I also had a quick
look at the Real basic web site. The price is too high, and there doesn't
seem to be a game API.
C/C++ is OK, I would use either SDL or CDX. I have had a quick look at
these two. Unfortunately SDL seems focused on 2D and there hasn't been a
new release of CDX in a fair while.
Java is a nice language to code in. I have no experience in using it for
real-time stuff though.
Any comments are appreciated.
Thanks
Ty
Peter Ashford
> Hey,
>
> Has anyone used Java to program games?
Yup
I'm trying to decide what
> programming language to use and I could do with some advice.
>
> All the basic (Blitz and Dark) languages I have looked at seem to have good
> API's for games, but I think it would be hard to write anything very big
> because the debugging doesn't look very good. Also the demo's crash on my
> computer. My biggest gripe with Blitz and Dark basic is that you can't tell
> the compiler to force explicit vairable declarations. I also had a quick
> look at the Real basic web site. The price is too high, and there doesn't
> seem to be a game API.
I have no experience with those languages, so I can't comment.
> C/C++ is OK, I would use either SDL or CDX. I have had a quick look at
> these two. Unfortunately SDL seems focused on 2D and there hasn't been a
> new release of CDX in a fair while.
C/C++ with SDL is a nice combination. SDL works well with OpenGL, so
it's not just for 2D. I've coded for this combination and liked it -
it's portable too :)
> Java is a nice language to code in. I have no experience in using it for
> real-time stuff though.
>
> Any comments are appreciated.
Java is fine for games using openGL (Jogl binding). For 2D, I wouldn't
use the standard drawing APIs, I'd go for 2D rendering over openGL for
speed.
Here's some good starting points for Java games:
https://games.dev.java.net/forums/
https://games.dev.java.net/
Pierre Pintaric
It depends what type of game you are coding.
If it is a 3D game, openGL is a good solution, but you have to thing
if Java is the good way. C/C++ will be surely more easiest.
If it is a 2D game, Java is the best way, and you can find lot of API
on the web which can help you for things like collisions...
Good Luck
Pierre Pintaric
The Genuts Team.
http://www.genuts.com/
Frecklefoot
> Has anyone used Java to program games?
Yes, but only professionally. ;-)
> All the basic (Blitz and Dark) languages I have looked at seem to have good
> API's for games, but I think it would be hard to write anything very big
> because the debugging doesn't look very good.
A good debugger is high in my priority list. What good is a language
if you can't debug it? That's why I didn't like Java very much, though
I used it for about a year. I could never find a decent debugger for
it. I guess I got spoiled by Microsoft's excellent IDE's!
> Also the demo's crash on my
> computer. My biggest gripe with Blitz and Dark basic is that you can't tell
> the compiler to force explicit vairable declarations. I also had a quick
> look at the Real basic web site. The price is too high, and there doesn't
> seem to be a game API.
I haven't used DarkBasic, but it'd surprise me if it didn't have a
game API. AFAIK, it IS a game API--that's their market. It also just
got an excellent review in Game Developer. What kind of game-related
API calls are you looking for?
> C/C++ is OK, I would use either SDL or CDX. I have had a quick look at
> these two. Unfortunately SDL seems focused on 2D and there hasn't been a
> new release of CDX in a fair while.
That's true, but I think what is there is still valid (CDX). You can
do 3D with SDL, but if you don't like it, you can use Direct3D or
OpenGL (if you want to be cross-platform).
> Java is a nice language to code in. I have no experience in using it for
> real-time stuff though.
Java is fine for most simple games, but I wouldn't use it for anything
too graphically demanding or 3D. It's 2D graphics API is nice, though
it takes some practice just like anything else. But few, if any, games
are or require realtime. Most games are programmed to be just "good
enough."
You've hinted at what you are looking for in a language, but haven't
said it explicitly. Do you need cross-platform support? Blazing speed?
2D as well as 3D support? Does it need to be OO?
Dr. O
Java is currently used in mobile games (i.e. mobile phones) as it's cross
platform. It is, however, still a lot slower than native code C/C++. I've
used C++/DirectX previously and it's very fast, although cumbersome to work
with. You'll have to work quite a bit just to get something working. Using
Darkbasic means you can spend more time on being creative instead of getting
things working. And the Pro version compiles to native code.
Peter Ashford
> "T" <csa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<Ev6cb.119942$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>>Has anyone used Java to program games?
>
>
> Yes, but only professionally. ;-)
>
>
>>All the basic (Blitz and Dark) languages I have looked at seem to have good
>>API's for games, but I think it would be hard to write anything very big
>>because the debugging doesn't look very good.
>
>
> A good debugger is high in my priority list. What good is a language
> if you can't debug it? That's why I didn't like Java very much, though
> I used it for about a year. I could never find a decent debugger for
> it. I guess I got spoiled by Microsoft's excellent IDE's!
Eclipse is a free Java IDE with debugger. It's the only IDE I've ever
found that I liked better than Visual Studio.
>
>>C/C++ is OK, I would use either SDL or CDX. I have had a quick look at
>>these two. Unfortunately SDL seems focused on 2D and there hasn't been a
>>new release of CDX in a fair while.
>
>
> That's true, but I think what is there is still valid (CDX). You can
> do 3D with SDL, but if you don't like it, you can use Direct3D or
> OpenGL (if you want to be cross-platform).
You can't do 3D with SDL alone, but it does integrate nicely with
OpenGL. It does not support D3D.
>
>>Java is a nice language to code in. I have no experience in using it for
>>real-time stuff though.
>
>
> Java is fine for most simple games, but I wouldn't use it for anything
> too graphically demanding or 3D.
Actually, this is where I *would* use it the most - you hand off the
heavy lifting to the gfx card.
>It's 2D graphics API is nice, though
The 2d gfx might well be too slow - I've seen a number of 2d java games
which don't cut it because they're too slow. As I said previously, if I
was going to do 2d with Java, I'd sit it on top of Jogl (OpenGL for Java)
Peter Ashford
> Java is currently used in mobile games (i.e. mobile phones) as it's cross
> platform. It is, however, still a lot slower than native code C/C++. I've
> used C++/DirectX previously and it's very fast, although cumbersome to work
> with. You'll have to work quite a bit just to get something working. Using
> Darkbasic means you can spend more time on being creative instead of getting
> things working. And the Pro version compiles to native code.
>
For 3D (Jogl/OpenGL), Java speed is fine because most of the work is
done by the Gfx card.
Dr. O
"Peter Ashford" <m...@here.there.com> wrote in message
news:xspcb.158108$JA5.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. OpenGL is almost exclusively
used on PC's and therefore C++, VB or DarkBASIC would be much more obvious
choices. And even though a lot is done by the 3D card, there's still plenty
of overhead in the game logic, so speed does matter.
Peter Ashford
>>
>>For 3D (Jogl/OpenGL), Java speed is fine because most of the work is
>>done by the Gfx card.
>
>
> Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
What terms contradict?
OpenGL is almost exclusively
> used on PC's
Ummm... no. Macs use openGL heavily too. So do most graphics workstations.
and therefore C++, VB or DarkBASIC would be much more obvious
> choices.
Why? What is "obvious" about using BASIC or C++ for openGL over using
Java? I could perhaps understand that argument being made for C or C++,
since openGL is a C interface, but why is BASIC more "obvious" to use
with openGL than Java?
And even though a lot is done by the 3D card, there's still plenty
> of overhead in the game logic, so speed does matter.
Have you profiled that and found out? I have done a lot of profiling of
windows/VC++/openGL, windows/SDL/OpenGL and windows/Java/OpenGL code
and I've seldom found many areas requiring radical optimization -
usually just using a sensible alogrithm does the job.
I've also profiled raw number crunching (floating point and integer
maths, array thrashing) in Java and VC++ and found the performance to be
very similar (for those tests, Java was about 80-105% the speed of C).
That means that unless you code very badly, there's no reason that your
game logic should go slow in Java.
Peter.
Dr. O
> >>>
> >>
> >>For 3D (Jogl/OpenGL), Java speed is fine because most of the work is
> >>done by the Gfx card.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
>
> What terms contradict?
>
>
> OpenGL is almost exclusively
> > used on PC's
>
> Ummm... no. Macs use openGL heavily too. So do most graphics
workstations.
Ok, same difference.
>
> and therefore C++, VB or DarkBASIC would be much more obvious
> > choices.
>
> Why? What is "obvious" about using BASIC or C++ for openGL over using
> Java? I could perhaps understand that argument being made for C or C++,
> since openGL is a C interface, but why is BASIC more "obvious" to use
> with openGL than Java?
Java is generally used in cross-platform business applications since speed
matters less there and the payoff of multiplatform execution is a great
boon. In games, you want the fastest performance possible. How many
commercial PC or console games are written in Java? None that I know off.
Speed matters, every drop of it. Until someone comes with a good native
code, static compiled version of Java and proves that it's 90% as fast as
C/C++ under similar circumstances, I won't give it a second thought. Also
note that a lot more tools (libraries and such) are only available for
C/C++. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Java fan (as in the language), but in the
entertainment industry competion is horrible, so you can't afford your game
having just a little less performance. On top off that, people won't like
them having to install a virtual machine to run your app.
>
> And even though a lot is done by the 3D card, there's still plenty
> > of overhead in the game logic, so speed does matter.
>
> Have you profiled that and found out? I have done a lot of profiling of
> windows/VC++/openGL, windows/SDL/OpenGL and windows/Java/OpenGL code
> and I've seldom found many areas requiring radical optimization -
> usually just using a sensible alogrithm does the job.
Maybe, but speed still matters and C++ is still quite a bit faster than Java
(especially startup and pre-JIT first-run). That may mean that may mean the
difference between 12 and 16 computer controlled opponents (compare the PS2
and XBox versions of "DTM Race Driver" for example).
>
> I've also profiled raw number crunching (floating point and integer
> maths, array thrashing) in Java and VC++ and found the performance to be
> very similar (for those tests, Java was about 80-105% the speed of C).
> That means that unless you code very badly, there's no reason that your
> game logic should go slow in Java.
>
Sounds too good to be true. And what kind of Java programming tools were you
using? Compiled or JIT interpreted Java?
But when you introduce your commercial Java PC/Console game, let me know.
I'll gladly eat my own words.
Frecklefoot
> > For 3D (Jogl/OpenGL), Java speed is fine because most of the work is
> > done by the Gfx card.
>
> Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
I don't see why.
> OpenGL is almost exclusively
> used on PC's and therefore C++, VB or DarkBASIC would be much more obvious
> choices.
OpenGL is a cross-platform 3D API. It can be used on PCs, Macs and
even on UNIX workstations. I can see why C or C++ would be more
logical to use with OpenGL as it is C-based, but why would using
DarkBASIC or VB be more logical than Java? It would seem to me that
Java would be MORE logical as it is also cross-platform.
> And even though a lot is done by the 3D card, there's still plenty
> of overhead in the game logic, so speed does matter.
I agree with this. Leaving out AI (which can be REALLY expensive),
physics and other "logic" type stuff, 3D calculations that are not
handled on the card can be very cycle-expensive. Most of the rendering
stuff can be (and is) handled on the card, but things like calculating
camera position, calculating movement and distances, view frustrom,
etc. can eat up a lot of cycles and are best handled by an optimized,
binary execution.
Frecklefoot
> Java is generally used in cross-platform business applications since speed
> matters less there and the payoff of multiplatform execution is a great
> boon.
Actually, I worked for a company which developed Java business
applications. The company was formed by a bunch of ex-Sun employees
who were Java bigots (don't get me wrong--not everyone who uses Java
is a "bigot"). To them, Java was the best solution for every possible
problem. They developed all their apps in Java and the apps were HUGE.
They were so big, no Java IDE could contain the apps and we had to
debug with PrintLine statements (boy, that sucked). Anyway, at least
their app worked (slowly), but they got to a point where the apps were
just too slow. Some things, like processing digital images (a
necessary job function), took way too long in Java. The C++ version os
software their customers were using were instantaneous, our companies
HIGHLY OPTIMIZED Java version took several seconds to display one
page. Our customers needed to zip through several pages in just a few
seconds, with our Java version, it took just a few seconds to display
one page.
Anyway, the company is history. Despite the fact that all their
customers used PC workstations, they were convinced Java was THE
answer for the business apps they needed to create...
> In games, you want the fastest performance possible. How many
> commercial PC or console games are written in Java? None that I know off.
Okay, a game doesn't have to be available on the PC or a console to be
"commercial." Bejewelled and many other games are browser-based Java
games and are every bit as commercial as The Sims or GTA3. They only
differ in scale.
No, I don't know of any PC or consol Java games, but commercial games
don't have be available "in a box" to be commercial.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a Java fan (as in the language), but in the
> entertainment industry competion is horrible, so you can't afford your game
> having just a little less performance.
Not every game is performance hungry. There are plenty of turn-based
and puzzle games that are easy on the processor and don't require
heavily optimized code. True, there are many games that are very
CPU-hungry such as FPS's or some RPG's. For those heavily-CPU
intensive apps, you'd be nuts to write them in Java. But don't assume
that every game needs assembly-optimized code.
> On top off that, people won't like
> them having to install a virtual machine to run your app.
Really? People don't seem to mind having to install (or upgrade)
DirectX to run their new game.
> Maybe, but speed still matters and C++ is still quite a bit faster than Java
> (especially startup and pre-JIT first-run). That may mean that may mean the
> difference between 12 and 16 computer controlled opponents (compare the PS2
> and XBox versions of "DTM Race Driver" for example).
Um, okay. But is either of those in Java?
There's no question as to whether Java or C++ is faster. C++ compiled
for the target machine almost always will be. And when using Java, I'd
assume it's NOT going to be JITted for the target machine. Java is a
nice API and it's benefit is that it is cross-platform. For some types
of games its meager execution speed is acceptable. For many it is not.
What you have to agree with, however, is that not every tool is
appropriate for every job. A C++ browser-based game would be much more
complex than a Java-based one. A Java-based FPS would be misguided
compared to a C++ one. Don't use a chainsaw to open your mail, don't
use a pocketknife to cut down a tree.
> > I've also profiled raw number crunching (floating point and integer
> > maths, array thrashing) in Java and VC++ and found the performance to be
> > very similar (for those tests, Java was about 80-105% the speed of C).
> > That means that unless you code very badly, there's no reason that your
> > game logic should go slow in Java.
> >
>
> Sounds too good to be true. And what kind of Java programming tools were you
> using? Compiled or JIT interpreted Java?
I'd also question this--un-JITted Java is almost always slower than
compiled C++.
> But when you introduce your commercial Java PC/Console game, let me know.
> I'll gladly eat my own words.
I covered this above--a game doesn't have to PC or Console based to be
"commercial."
I don't know what kind of games you create, but they may be totally
inappropriate for Java, so your stance may be based on your games'
genre. But Java is perfectly suitable for some types of game
development--even some 3D games. But if you, say, develop FPS's or
strategy games with super heavy-duty AI, C++ may be the only way to
go. But don't assume that Java is inappropriate for ALL TYPES of game
development.
Personally, I usually develop in C++ (okay, and C and C#), but I did
develop games professionaly in Java for a while. Most Java IDE's suck
compared to C++ ones, but once you get the games running correctly,
they're just as good as an equivalent C++ one would be. But the games
I developed were appropriate for Java--they had meager system
requirements and were normally 2D. But if I were developing an RPG or
FPS or some similar intensive game, I would have used C++.
Luke J Crook
"Frecklefoot" <ch...@bucketobits.com> wrote in message
news:dfd57bb5.03092...@posting.google.com...
> "Dr. O" <dr.o@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:<3f740afb$0$35683$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
> > Java is generally used in cross-platform business applications since
speed
> > matters less there and the payoff of multiplatform execution is a great
> > boon.
>
> "commercial." Bejewelled and many other games are browser-based Java
> games and are every bit as commercial as The Sims or GTA3. They only
> differ in scale.
Concerning Bejewelled: Is the version that you register and pay for still
written in Java ? I notice the distributable is standalone and comes with an
installer.
> Personally, I usually develop in C++ (okay, and C and C#), but I did
> develop games professionaly in Java for a while. Most Java IDE's suck
> compared to C++ ones, but once you get the games running correctly,
> they're just as good as an equivalent C++ one would be.
So the Java IDE's are ok as long as you are lucky enough not to have any
bugs ? :)
-Luke
Josh Szepietowski
> > Okay, a game doesn't have to be available on the PC or a console to be
> > "commercial." Bejewelled and many other games are browser-based Java
> > games and are every bit as commercial as The Sims or GTA3. They only
> > differ in scale.
>
> Concerning Bejewelled: Is the version that you register and pay for still
> written in Java ? I notice the distributable is standalone and comes with
an
> installer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was done with Flash?
Luke J Crook
"Josh Szepietowski" <t...@sssnet.com> wrote in message
news:vn9i4n7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Concerning Bejewelled: Is the version that you register and pay for
still
> > written in Java ? I notice the distributable is standalone and comes
with
> an
> > installer.
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was done with Flash?
>
The 'preview' versions that run in the browser, or the installable versions
that can be registered ? The versions that run in the browser are most
definitely Java applets: taken from the popcap.com website
"Free and easy! All our games play right in your browser. They're all 100%
java, so no downloads or plug-ins are needed."
-Luke
Peter Ashford
> "Peter Ashford" <m...@here.there.com> wrote in message
> news:qPLcb.159118$JA5.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>>>For 3D (Jogl/OpenGL), Java speed is fine because most of the work is
>>>>done by the Gfx card.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
>>
>>What terms contradict?
No answer huh?
>>
>>OpenGL is almost exclusively
>>
>>>used on PC's
>>
>>Ummm... no. Macs use openGL heavily too. So do most graphics
>
> workstations.
>
> Ok, same difference.
Uh, no. Last time I looked, Silicon Graphics machines weren't PCs.
>
>>and therefore C++, VB or DarkBASIC would be much more obvious
>>
>>>choices.
>>
>>Why? What is "obvious" about using BASIC or C++ for openGL over using
>>Java? I could perhaps understand that argument being made for C or C++,
>>since openGL is a C interface, but why is BASIC more "obvious" to use
>>with openGL than Java?
>
>
> Java is generally used in cross-platform business applications since speed
> matters less there and the payoff of multiplatform execution is a great
> boon. In games, you want the fastest performance possible. How many
> commercial PC or console games are written in Java? None that I know off.
> Speed matters, every drop of it.
Come on! You were advocating BASIC, be consistent.
Until someone comes with a good native
> code, static compiled version of Java and proves that it's 90% as fast as
> C/C++ under similar circumstances, I won't give it a second thought.
That profiling I mentioned *was* for an OpenGL game engine in Java
versus the same code in C++ - the speed was pretty much identical.
Also
> note that a lot more tools (libraries and such) are only available for
> C/C++.
True, and you can use them in Java just fine - I used to use DevIL image
library for loading textures in my openGL Java code. Why did you think
that was a problem?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Java fan (as in the language), but in the
> entertainment industry competion is horrible, so you can't afford your game
> having just a little less performance. On top off that, people won't like
> them having to install a virtual machine to run your app.
Don't have to - you can static compile if you don't want a JVM, or like
a product my company bought recently - just silently install a local JVM.
>
>>And even though a lot is done by the 3D card, there's still plenty
>>
>>>of overhead in the game logic, so speed does matter.
>>
>>Have you profiled that and found out? I have done a lot of profiling of
>> windows/VC++/openGL, windows/SDL/OpenGL and windows/Java/OpenGL code
>>and I've seldom found many areas requiring radical optimization -
>>usually just using a sensible alogrithm does the job.
>
>
> Maybe, but speed still matters and C++ is still quite a bit faster than Java
> (especially startup and pre-JIT first-run). That may mean that may mean the
> difference between 12 and 16 computer controlled opponents (compare the PS2
> and XBox versions of "DTM Race Driver" for example).
The startup speed is definitely slower in a JVM over a C/C++ native
compiled executable. However, the factor is constant - a matter of a
second or so. Given that most games you play these days have several
seconds start time, I don't see that the extra start time is that big a
deal.
Also, static compilers fix that issue, if it really bugs you.
>
>>I've also profiled raw number crunching (floating point and integer
>>maths, array thrashing) in Java and VC++ and found the performance to be
>>very similar (for those tests, Java was about 80-105% the speed of C).
>>That means that unless you code very badly, there's no reason that your
>>game logic should go slow in Java.
>>
>
>
> Sounds too good to be true. And what kind of Java programming tools were you
> using? Compiled or JIT interpreted Java?
Sun's 1.4 JVM versus Visual C++ 6.0.
Peter Ashford
>>>maths, array thrashing) in Java and VC++ and found the performance to be
>>>very similar (for those tests, Java was about 80-105% the speed of C).
>>>That means that unless you code very badly, there's no reason that your
>>>game logic should go slow in Java.
>>>
>>
>>Sounds too good to be true. And what kind of Java programming tools were you
>>using? Compiled or JIT interpreted Java?
>
>
> I'd also question this--un-JITted Java is almost always slower than
> compiled C++.
un-JITed code, yes, but how many JVMs do not JIT the code?
The results shouldn't be suprising - the code is compiled on the fly and
artithmetic and array processing are usually pretty simply things to
apply sensible optimisations to.
>
> I don't know what kind of games you create, but they may be totally
> inappropriate for Java, so your stance may be based on your games'
> genre. But Java is perfectly suitable for some types of game
> development--even some 3D games. But if you, say, develop FPS's or
> strategy games with super heavy-duty AI, C++ may be the only way to
> go. But don't assume that Java is inappropriate for ALL TYPES of game
> development.
>
> Personally, I usually develop in C++ (okay, and C and C#), but I did
> develop games professionaly in Java for a while. Most Java IDE's suck
> compared to C++ ones,
Have you tried Eclipse? It really is awfully good (and free).
Vibhu Rishi
I was looking at the replies to your email, but it quickly digressed to
other stuff :-) . Please find my reply inline :
T wrote:
>Hey,
>
>Has anyone used Java to program games? I'm trying to decide what
>programming language to use and I could do with some advice.
>
I assume here that you are a newbie to game programming. Or are you new
to programming altogether ?
>All the basic (Blitz and Dark) languages I have looked at seem to have good
>API's for games, but I think it would be hard to write anything very big
>because the debugging doesn't look very good. Also the demo's crash on my
>computer. My biggest gripe with Blitz and Dark basic is that you can't tell
>the compiler to force explicit vairable declarations. I also had a quick
>look at the Real basic web site. The price is too high, and there doesn't
>seem to be a game API.
>
i programmed my first game in basic - in school - for a project. We were
using BBC micros at that time.. and it was fun ! Haven't really seen
much games written in basic now though.
>C/C++ is OK, I would use either SDL or CDX. I have had a quick look at
>these two. Unfortunately SDL seems focused on 2D and there hasn't been a
>new release of CDX in a fair while.
>
quite wrong here. SDL only provides you an API which abstracts the lower
layers, which makes the process of writing games much easier. Also, its
cross platform, so much easy to port your games - if you want to do
that. I have written programs on linux, which compile quite well on
windows. However, since game programming is a hobby, and the license for
VC++ prohibitive, i use linux for all my programming.
SDL gells very well with OpenGL , if you are interested in 3D graphics.
Look up documentation of SDL for howto on OpenGL , and the tutorials at
nehe.gamedev.net for more stuff on opengl.
>
>Java is a nice language to code in. I have no experience in using it for
>real-time stuff though.
>
>
depends on what game you are planning to make. if its a turn based game
- java will be quite good - especially for a beginner. If, you are
planning to make a FPS, or a RTS, C++ would be your best bet.
Hope this answers your questions.
Vibhu..
>
>
Xyllon
any one would use it for game programing. the people who think that way are
just losers and nothing else.
Fronsac
company that does JUST THAT and make money out of it :
http://www.hexacto.com/
"Xyllon" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:8FFpb.6290$Bv6.1...@news1.epix.net...
Xyllon
Fronsac <fronsac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoHpb.50687$Gn2.1...@weber.videotron.net...
Frecklefoot
> Seems like a waste of time to me. why not do it with a better language?
Why not cite some shortcomings instead of just random insults? There
is no one language that is best for everything: Don't use a chainsaw
to open your mail, don't use a pocketknife to cut down a tree.
Java is great for some things, unsuitable for others (just like C,
C++, C#, Lisp, Ada, etc.). Java is cross-platform and very OO. The
Java SDK is free. I'm not saying Java is THE BEST programming
languages, but you should back up your assertions with some evidence.
Peter Ashford
Java is a great language for a lot of things. It's not the be-all and
end-all. Neither is C or C++.
Grow up.