Talk:Java (programming language)

Write Once Compile twice?

It seems the statement that Android can run Java in the Google section is technically inconsistent with the write once run anywhere statements, since the code has to be recompiled for that platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.12.222 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many examples

I think the article has too many examples and feels to much as a programming textbook. I don't see why there needs to be example code for Applets, Swing GUIs, Servlets with detailed explanations. If you compare it to the C++ or C articles it becomes apparent that the amount of code in the article has to be reduces for readability. What are your opinions on this? --217.209.140.211 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I just read this article in full in order to get an understanding of the Java language, and feel that: the source code examples in the Syntax section very much enhance the quality of the article and do not take lengthen the article significantly. I think it is valuable and important to describe the syntax of the language, because syntax is a fundamental component of a programming language. I also think that it would inappropriate to attempt to describe the syntax without examples, and that the examples given are pretty good.

Likewise, I think that the examples in the Special Classes section are each justified in that they describe a significant aspect of Java with minimal and tidy source, and concise comments.

The line between factual exposition and training is grey, and when the topic is a tool, an example or description of its use constitutes both. The examples in the article enhance the factual description of Java in areas which are fundamental to programming languages, and do not, I believe, make the article overly cumbersome or hard to read. For readers without any knowledge of programming, those sections would be hard to read, but the exposition is well partitioned. Articles describing similarly specialised content in different fields typically adopt a similar style, and I believe this is sensible. (Unsigned comment by 49.129.61.26)

I agree there are too many examples (see my comment below that this article is horrible). For this article to be effective, 49.129.61.26, you would have to be a programmer with considerable experience in another language, who happened not to know Java, and who was terribly interested in often trivial differences in programming syntax. That probably constitutes <1% of Wikipedia's general readers. For the other 99% it's either a boring repetition of what they already know, or an incomprehensible barrage of facts they can't understand and probably wouldn't care about if they could.

I also disagree that this sterile, unidirectional style is common in Wiki articles on biology, sociology, history, economics, ecology, physics ....

76.102.1.193 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article is front loaded with examples to prevent criticisms of Java section from expanding, IE the purpose of the extent of the code examples is to take up space so that factually based negative statements cannot be included for example limitations of expression in the Java language preventing portability of code across Java run-time versions either on different platforms or same platforms with different JRE versions, performance of Java implementations, or limitations in the independence of the language specification committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.12.222 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The amount of criticism in the article is fine. Go look at the C or C++ article and compare the criticism sections. Mm32pc (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request (July 30, 2012)

The latest stable version is not 1.7.5 but 1.7.0.5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.21.217 (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2012

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/jdk7-relnotes-418459.html 202.131.110.154 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific as to what you want to be changed in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Simpler object model than C++

This is clearly true, because of no multiple inheritance. What level of RS do you want to back this up? Hcobb (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's 'clearly true'. Sure Java doesn't have M.I., but there's more to an object model than that.

Compared to C it's a no contest - Java has classes for a start, but also inheritance, interfaces, references, different rules for fundamentals and class types, generics, type coercion (auto boxing and unboxing), exceptions and garbage collection.

Compared to C++, Java still has interfaces (instead of MI), different rules for fundamentals and class types, generics instead of templates, type coercion (auto boxing and unboxing) and garbage collection.

I haven't see any RS that says that 'Java has a simpler object model than C++'. There's plenty that say that Java is simpler, but that's another story.

Let me know if you find any decent, clear, RS quotes.

peterl (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's best to state facts only, such as "in Java, multiple inheritance is only supported for interfaces" (or a clearer explanation than that blurb that just came off the top of my head). Comparing two programming languages on the basis of "simplicity" is very much a judgement call, and it is difficult to avoid WP:OR. Even where WP:RS have stated such things (and assuming there are no other WP:RS that disagree), trying to work such things into WP articles usually involves a lot of WP:Weasel Words; "some say that Java is simpler...bla bla etc.". -- Nczempin (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)