Re: finalize()
nukleus wrote:
Huh?
What is java on the first place, mr. mouth foaming smart?
Lew wrote:
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
nukleus wrote:
Kindly describe what constitutes java [sic] as such
and what makes it fundamentally different.
Lew wrote:
What constitutes Java as such is the Java Language Specification:
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/index.html>
nukleus wrote:
Thanks, not interested at the moment.
But, but ... you asked for it.
Lew wrote:
.. There are many things that "make... it fundamentally different" from C++ -
built-in Hoare monitors, GC,
nukleus wrote:
You mean GC is wired into the very language spec?
Yes. Well, actually, into the JVM spec, but Java is predicated on running on
the JVM. That is why it does not have destructors.
Lew wrote:
nukleus wrote:
And what am I seeing here in just about any code exaple?
Not templates.
Well, generics, that are only recently introduced.
Still not templates.
Lew wrote:
nukleus wrote:
Is is something fundamental?
Yes.
I, personally like the idea of preprocessor.
First of all, you are not forced to use it,
Have you seen any non-trivial C/C++ program without #include?
and, by its very name, it implies that it is not
part of a language proper. It simply goes though
your source files and does a string substitutions,
and, after it is done, the compliler proper does its job.
It is a part of the language, albeit not "proper".
Lew wrote:
pragmatic culture vs. ivory-tower culture,
nukleus wrote:
Huh?
What I am seeing with java is that very iviory-tower
images all over the place, going to the point of mouth
foaming lunacy with all this upper/lower case issue,
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
The culture may seem "ivory tower" in newsgroups, but the proffering of idioms
and theoretical underpinnings is pragmatically motivated. In the workaday
world of creating commercial systems, I have never encountered an argument
over whether Java should support closures, for example.
And the "foaming lunacy" to which you colorfully allude is simply the
suggestion that the conventions are useful.
nukleus wrote:
and, to this moment, nobody presented an argument
on why in the world it is so important of an issue?
It is not if you will it not. Conventions exist to make life easier between
people. You are certainly free to violate the convention and incur the extra
effort. (A pragmatic concern.)
Do you understand the meaning of some label if it is
ALL written in lower case? Or meaning somehow magically
evaporates?
Case does not in most cases contribute mightily to semantics per se, but the
use of conventional case and other conventions in source does help human
communication.
But this is not a matter of differences between C++ and Java.
I have my own way of looking at things
and I could care less who thinks what about it
and whether THEIR eyes get ripped appart because of
the most innocent things imaginable, such as starting
method names in lower case. But why?
Huh? "eyes"? "ripped apart"?
Cannot answer "why" because the premise is flawed.
- (voice from above) This is just a convention.
You MUST follow it.
Otherwise, the ivory-tower java priests
are not going to talk to you,
as they'll INEVITABLY consider you
as some "unswivilized" entity,
and their minds are programmed
to consider such entities
as non Aryan, and, therefore, filth of human race,
to be exterminated at all cost,
to purify the blood of mankind.
Funny, ain't it.
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
You, just about the highest priest I have seen
around here, are talking about IVORY TOWERS?
While sitting on that very ivory tower
and making all the ivory tower proclamations
as to the very nature of things?
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
According to what kind of monkey logic?
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
I bet you can't even read my post without
your blood temperature raising to the point
of boiling. Just of this stupid lil capitalization
issue, not even worth a minute to be even mentioned.
The /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support your point.
And what have you made of it?
Just about the BIGGEST difference between C, C++ and Java?
I lost your antecedent here. Are you referring to source-code conventions? I
did not mention those as being part of the difference between these languages.
Lew wrote:
little variegated parrots that peck at suet, ...
nukleus wrote:
Well, that is about the extent of it all.
But, strangely enough, you did not mention the very
JVM idea and never commented on that other post
where I asked what is so fundamentally different
between JVM and a P code idea of Pascal?
I wasn't answering that post, I was answering a different one.
So far, the differences you mentioned do not look like
something fundamental in nature. Some of it could be
simply added as libraries to C/C++ without even winking
an eye.
The definition of "fundamental" is at issue. I accept yours; ultimately there
is no "fundamental" difference between Java and assembly language.
You see, at the end, you'll still rely on underlying
operating system for memory management, file system
operations, threads and all the other MAJOR mechanisms
and concepts.
And this is relevant because ...
I am not here to argue Java is "bad" and C++ is "good".
Because I am not a priest on the first place.
I do not operate using the fascist black and white model
of the world.
To me, life force is a rainbow, where it is literally
impossible to distinguish one color from the next one
in spectrum.
And yet blue and yellow are still different, perhaps even "fundamentally" in
some sense. And yet similar, perhaps simultaneously "fundamentally" so, in
some sense.
Just about ALL you can come up with, is
fracturization and compartmentation of life force,
trying to dissect the Infinite Intelligence and
place it into nice lil boxes
with labels,
such as
"Coca Cola is GOOD. DRINK Coca Cola!"
What? Huh? How did we wind up talking about theology and Coca-Cola (r)? Not
that I don't see the connection between them, but to this discussion?
And not only it is a rainbow, undivisible,
but MULTI-DIMENSIONAL one at that.
You comprehende?
I understand the words, but not the relevance.
Existence is a MULTI-DIMENSIONAL reality.
There exists no central point,
from which all is to be defined or seen.
I would say rather that there exists an uncountably infinite set of such points.
You can look at it from just about any point
in this Infinite, multi-dimensional structure,
and no specific point of view
can possibly be classified as valid,
as they are ALL vaild.
At the level of heat death of the universe, we are all just low-level infrared
radiation. Distinctions occur at a lower level.
It is just a matter of different point of view.
"Just"? IF you got hit by a bus, would your point of view extend your mortality?
I do not wish to waste my royal time
on teaching you the most basic stuff there is,
the stuff of LIFE itself.
Good. I would question your chops to do so.
My /ad hominem/ attack does not go far to support my point.
You just keep walking wherever you wish to walk.
But when you cross my path,
beware.
You'll have to put aside all your rigid assumptions
and "constraints" of all kinds and be ready to
deal with RAW energy, and not your puppet world
in a shadow theatre,
where your strings are pulled
and you jump like a bunch of puppets.
What? How is this remotely sensible? I think you left out a few steps of the
syllogism, but perhaps I am simply unable to see how this relates to the
differences between Java and C++.
As you will be exposed to all 5 fire signs
There are only three in Western astrology: Aries, Leo and Sagittarius.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sign>
and not tripple armor will help.
Trust me.
What will be left of you
isn't even worth mentioning,
and I am giving you a BIG favor
by telling you that.
Cause I am a destructor of those ivory tower sitting
priests of your kind.
Are you threatening me?
Should we take this outside?
You see, in C++ they have a concept of destructor,
which I personally like. Because, first of all,
you are not forced to put anything to it,
but when it is hit in run time,
you are GUARANTEED that certain rules apply now,
as as soon as you exit it,
just forget about that object.
So, in my main Processor class,
i have a routine (:--}) called
Terminator.
Now, it is legal to call Terminator from just
about any place in the program conceivable,
and what Terminator guarantees
is that
1) Your main thread will be terminated
and terminated gracefuly.
2) Your frame will be properly disposed of.
So, if you are in a deadly situation and can not
figure out how to handle some out of the blue error,
just call the Terminator.
Guaranteed to work just fine.
Get it?
Sounds like a finally block.
Ever heard of 7 folded Truth?
Goes back about 5000 years BC.
It goes something like this:
1. It IS.
2. And it is NOT.
3. And it is BOTH.
4. And it is NEITHER.
5. And it is all of the above
6. And it is none included
(Sorry, do not remember the last one)
Actually, I really find this idea intriguing, as it resonates with many
aspects of my own philosophy. I would even say that "I do not remember the
last one" is the last one.
I still don't see the relevance to this discussion, but you have some
fascinating and intriguing idea.
But what IS coca cola?
Absolutely delicious. Far better than Pepsi-Cola.
- Lew