4 ms·
Agreed. Not the language itself, but the way the runtime operates. One simply does not build reliable and fundamental abstractions over non-optimal enough abstr
by zxcdw 13y ago
Agreed. Not the language itself, but the way the runtime operates. One simply does not build reliable and fundamental abstractions over non-optimal enough abstractions and expect things to work long-term.
- tomjen3 13y agoAll the abstractions you build will eventually go over x86 bytecode instructions. And those aren't pretty, let me tell you. The truth is that there is nothing important wrong with Java, and everything important wrong with Java programmers, which casues people like you to say things like that.
- eatmyshorts 13y agoI guess you aren't aware of the dozens of 0-day exploits to the JVM that were released last year? Since Oracle took over, Java's security model is looking like Swiss cheese, Oracle's responsiveness to security flaws has been slow, and the fixes have introduced even more security flaws. See here ( http://java-0day.com/ http://java-0day.com/ ) for some examples.
- tomjen3 13y agoI am away against attacks against the java applet executor, not against Java itself.
- eatmyshorts 13y agoThe problems weren't with the Java Applet executor. They were with the JVM. Java WebStart and the JVM security model are the two places where most of the 0-day exploits came. Neither of these have anything to do with applets.
- zxcdw 13y agoWhat are these magical "x86 bytecode instructions"? That phrasing itself means nothing. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I personally object by principle anything which is non-optimal by design because it means that everything built atop has to carry the penalties of the non-optimal design. Everyone suffers from the tradeoffs.