3 ms·

I like the direction the "new" Microsoft is going! Hopefully they'll behave themselves this time (re: Visual J++, etc)

bhauer 7y ago
J++ might get a bad rap in hindsight, but back in the day, it was amazing. The editor was liquid smooth, performance wise, and the compiler was at least a dozen times faster than the JDK Java compiler. It was like the Jikes compiler before Jikes. I recall using Visual J++ and its compiler to do "pure Java" development back then and it was a delight. I only moved to Eclipse later because Eclipse had a deeper understanding of the Java language and was able to do fancy things like traverse a call stack from static code analysis. Eclipse was considerably slower in UI and responsiveness, especially on hardware of the time, but that utility made up for it.
- ben7799 7y ago
  I think Eclipse is probably still slower on modern hardware than Visual J++ was in 1999-2000, which was the last time I used it. The first commercial Java project I worked on we used Visual J++. It was a great environment at the time, there was very little else available if I remember correctly. Sun had something which was horrible. Eclipse is so bad I think those of us who have been in the Java camp for years/decades/whole career have lost sight of just how much better the MS tools were/are. I don't even remember feeling as much frustration towards VC++ in the 1990s as I do with Eclipse today. It's too easy to forget Mac wasn't even an option back then. OSX didn't start to become viable till 2003-2004. I've officially been doing Java 20 years now... part of me really wants to jump the fence and go work on Windows stuff. I jumped the fence to work on Python 6 years ago. But it was "Python being used for stuff Java is 10x better for" and got tired of it after a year. Python is 10x better than Java for lots of things.. but not for giant enterprise systems IMO.
  - bhauer 7y ago
    Agreed. It may be true that Eclipse on a Ryzen 9 doesn't feel as responsive as Visual J++ on a Pentium III. J++ was just that much faster than Eclipse. Then again, for my usage, the J++ environment was not much more than a syntax-colored text editor with project files and a method and field browser. Like I said, when Eclipse arrived a few years later, it provided a lot of utility that J++ did not, and obviously that utility has value. But I think both of us look back fondly on J++ because we know that had it not been cut short, it could have evolved into something different and possibly even better than what we know as Java today. It seems plausible that in an alternate history where J++ kept evolving, I'd be more satisfied with the state of the art.
webboynews 7y ago
Behave? J++ was Mike's ahead of sun, hence the lawsuit. Their jitter beat sun's
- DannyB2 7y ago
  J++ had extensions that were not portable -- in clear violation of the binding license agreement that Microsoft would not add anything to the java.* or javax.* namespaces. Hence the lawsuit. Microsoft could have added any Microsoft or Windows goodies they wanted -- as long as they didn't try to make it appear that these extensions were part of the Java platform and would run anywhere. There's nothing wrong with Java code that only works on some systems. But not if you're making a version of Java and building those extensions in, especially in a way that tricks developers into using them because they appear to be part of the Java base. Then later the developer discovers their program only runs on Windows.
  - webboynews 7y ago
    Sorry I didn't clarify. You're right about the states reason and legal reason but in reality the problem was j++ bring better
    - DannyB2 7y ago
      I have to disagree. Sun sued Microsoft because Sun's entire motivation in Java was to keep Java portable. So much so that it was in the contract. It was a private contract dispute between two companies. A civil matter. Not a state criminal matter.

J++ might get a bad rap in hindsight, but back in the day, it was amazing. The editor was liquid smooth, performance wise, and the compiler was at least a dozen times faster than the JDK Java compiler. It was like the Jikes compiler before Jikes. I recall using Visual J++ and its compiler to do "pure Java" development back then and it was a delight. I only moved to Eclipse later because Eclipse had a deeper understanding of the Java language and was able to do fancy things like traverse a call stack from static code analysis. Eclipse was considerably slower in UI and responsiveness, especially on hardware of the time, but that utility made up for it.

ben7799 7y ago
I think Eclipse is probably still slower on modern hardware than Visual J++ was in 1999-2000, which was the last time I used it. The first commercial Java project I worked on we used Visual J++. It was a great environment at the time, there was very little else available if I remember correctly. Sun had something which was horrible. Eclipse is so bad I think those of us who have been in the Java camp for years/decades/whole career have lost sight of just how much better the MS tools were/are. I don't even remember feeling as much frustration towards VC++ in the 1990s as I do with Eclipse today. It's too easy to forget Mac wasn't even an option back then. OSX didn't start to become viable till 2003-2004. I've officially been doing Java 20 years now... part of me really wants to jump the fence and go work on Windows stuff. I jumped the fence to work on Python 6 years ago. But it was "Python being used for stuff Java is 10x better for" and got tired of it after a year. Python is 10x better than Java for lots of things.. but not for giant enterprise systems IMO.
- bhauer 7y ago
  Agreed. It may be true that Eclipse on a Ryzen 9 doesn't feel as responsive as Visual J++ on a Pentium III. J++ was just that much faster than Eclipse. Then again, for my usage, the J++ environment was not much more than a syntax-colored text editor with project files and a method and field browser. Like I said, when Eclipse arrived a few years later, it provided a lot of utility that J++ did not, and obviously that utility has value. But I think both of us look back fondly on J++ because we know that had it not been cut short, it could have evolved into something different and possibly even better than what we know as Java today. It seems plausible that in an alternate history where J++ kept evolving, I'd be more satisfied with the state of the art.

webboynews 7y ago

Behave? J++ was Mike's ahead of sun, hence the lawsuit. Their jitter beat sun's

DannyB2 7y ago
J++ had extensions that were not portable -- in clear violation of the binding license agreement that Microsoft would not add anything to the java.* or javax.* namespaces. Hence the lawsuit. Microsoft could have added any Microsoft or Windows goodies they wanted -- as long as they didn't try to make it appear that these extensions were part of the Java platform and would run anywhere. There's nothing wrong with Java code that only works on some systems. But not if you're making a version of Java and building those extensions in, especially in a way that tricks developers into using them because they appear to be part of the Java base. Then later the developer discovers their program only runs on Windows.
- webboynews 7y ago
  Sorry I didn't clarify. You're right about the states reason and legal reason but in reality the problem was j++ bring better
  - DannyB2 7y ago
    I have to disagree. Sun sued Microsoft because Sun's entire motivation in Java was to keep Java portable. So much so that it was in the contract. It was a private contract dispute between two companies. A civil matter. Not a state criminal matter.