|
vapid cutlery posted:u mad yeah im trying to quit smoking and everything pisses me right off 
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
vapid cutlery posted:u mad ahhhh you can't just say u mad what is this GBS???? - you about some dumb bullshit one time you really do get mad about internet stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Police Academy III posted:duck typing doesn't force you to use inheritance, but it's still an option. clojure's protocols literally provide you with no way to specify any kind of inheritance. if you want two object to share the same behaviour you literally have to copy/past the same code. you said polymorphism without inheritance has never been a thing anywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Socracheese posted:ahhhh you can't just say u mad what is this GBS???? if you say so
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
vapid cutlery posted:you said polymorphism without inheritance has never been a thing anywhere i meant polymorphism without the possibility of inheritance, ok dad?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Police Academy III posted:clojure's protocols literally provide you with no way to specify any kind of inheritance. if you want two object to share the same behaviour you literally have to copy/past the same code. You mean like this? (defprotocol Foobar (foo [x]) (bar [x])) (def default-logic {:foo #(inc %1) :bar #(dec %1)}) (extend java.lang.Integer Foobar default-logic) (extend java.lang.Long Foobar (merge default-logic {:foo #(* %1 100)}))
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
Police Academy III posted:i meant polymorphism without the possibility of inheritance, ok dad?
Which do not necessarily require inheritance, nor would require it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
composition owns 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
duck typing is a bad thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:duck typing is a bad thing yeah those webbed feet are probably not very effective. i'm sure they mistakenly hit the wrong keys all the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:nesC why not eCos or viper
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
tef posted:composition owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
 Time to Give Java the Boot? Analysis: The programming language has become one of the weakest links in a PC’s and Mac's defenses against external threats, and is slowly -- and rightly -- being abandoned. By Andrew Brandt, PCWorld Is it time to give Java the boot? Experts say yes. Java, the programming language designed to make the web fun and interactive, has become one of the weakest links in a PC’s and Mac's defenses against external threats. Consider the most recent Java vulnerability, a weakness currently being exploited by malware distributors: When Oracle, Java's maker, released an emergency update to fix the software, security analysts reported that even the hot-off-the-presses code contains additional vulnerabilities. But the most recent security problems with Java are far from unique. Security firm Sophos, for example, blames underlying Java vulnerability for attacks by the Flashback malware last April that infected one out of five Macs. The risks don't outweigh the rewards, security experts say. “I'd say 90 percent of users don't need Java anymore,” says Dominique Karg, the founder and chief hacking officer of AlienVault, a security software company. “I consider myself a ‘power user’ and the last and only time I realized I had Java installed on my Mac was when I had to update it.” If you own a PC you know that nagging feeling of insecurity when you're asked to update your Windows PC for the umpteenth time. It may only be moderately disruptive, but it’s a monthly reminder that your computer, and the personal information contained therein, remains a target for criminals. Over the years both Apple and Microsoft have hardened their systems’ defenses. The Mac operating system has been near-bulletproof to vulnerabilities, and the company no longer ships new devices with Java preinstalled. Microsoft has made a full-court press to eliminate operating system-level vulnerabilities since the Conficker worm outbreak in late 2008, and no comparable worms have attacked Windows systems since then. Mozilla and Opera, as well as Microsoft, maker of Internet Explorer, have spent the better part of the past decade toughening their browsers against attacks through a relentless parade of updates. Mozilla, for example, lists 2237 bugs – not all security bugs – that were fixed in its version 15 release of the Firefox browser, which was published on August 28. But even if your OS and browser security is inspired by Fort Knox, the bad guys always seem to find a new gap in the armor. ... The question of whether to keep Java comes down to “your risk profile, and how critical that system is,” says Team Cymru’s Santorelli. “If the consequences of a compromise would be catastrophic,” uninstall Java.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
lol Also yeah it's dumb to have java installed on client machines. The only people who need java are java developers writing backend applications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
yea pretty much. and even if you are distributing a java based client (ex: an rcp client) you can distribute a specific vm along with it that isnt hooked into the browser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:(ex: an rcp client) PLEASE deploy this for yospos, tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Also if you replaced Java with Flash and Oracle with Adobe that article would be 100% true as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:PLEASE deploy this for yospos, tia lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
what possible use is there for applets anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
lol i remember one of the first programming classes i took was java and i made a bunch of web applets and i just remember what a pain in the rear end it was to code a decent UI still glad i did it because it gave me a solid foundation for java backend dev stuff that I did later can't believe people are still writing/using java applets in tyool 2012
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
java
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
craplet
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
if you must use an applet, use AIR instead, at least that way you have all the security vulnerabilities but without the horrendous startup time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
shouldnt applets theoretically be able to manipulate the entire DOM/BOM by opening a socket to a javascript proxy in the same page? someone do this
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:shouldnt applets theoretically be able to manipulate the entire DOM/BOM by opening a socket to a javascript proxy in the same page? someone do this applets can manipulate the entire dom via liveconnect or whatever they're calling it now
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
i guess sun/netscape weren't quite as retarded about marketing java as i thought
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:i guess sun/netscape weren't quite as retarded about marketing java as i thought java applets were actually pretty great except for:
Some things tried to remedy the last one. Marimba in particular was a great solution that presaged a lot of the self-updating applications you see now. AIR addresses all two still extant issues. Unfortunately, Adobe. So here we are, in 2012 with web 'developers' getting all excited over the thrilling prospect of - omg - opening a socket connection!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
idle speculation while I avoid coding weirdly with java, the whole thing was designed for consumer touch screens, a sort of dynabook cum ipad, client side code, loading code over the network, and ended up being popular for almost the opposite, with the exception of android pushing into the mobile market early froze the jvm somewhat, for hardware compat. c# didn't have this yoke of backwards compatibility, and as a result stagnating the language. i guess people bought into java because of the promise of writing the same code on client and server. i guess that is why node.js is gaining popularity. one hammer to nail them all. then again, imagine if sun had bought macromedia instead of adobe, and made flash spit out applets, we might be seeing node.as java is a weird thing, an example of something that was so ahead of it's time, it never caught up to the present.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
java owns specifically because it has avoided alot of the bad fads of "modern" "languages"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
tef posted:composition owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
i like when people want to subclass NSArray and im like, just use composition, like the docs say,
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:java owns specifically because it has avoided alot of the bad fads of "modern" "languages" Your sarcasm is impeccable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
how did a language with guy steele's name on it not have lambdas for 15 years smh
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
java sucks but the best ide is written in in. intellij idea. that's the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
multigl posted:intellij idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
java is mostly fine, but it's hosed up in a couple ways: * as noted, jvm startup time is still poo poo for reasons i dont understand * no callbacks wtf * backwards compatibility still poo poo, forcing devs to ship java apps along with a particular jvm, which is so monumentally retarded i cant even stand it so other than those three glaring defects, java is just great
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
rotor posted:java is mostly fine, but it's hosed up in a couple ways: is jvm backwards compatibility that bad?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
i havent really touched java in a while, but when i was, our product worked on the following java versions and only the following java versions: 1.4.0.1-3 1.4.0.5 1.4.0.8 1.4.1.0-i dont know 10 or so 1.4.1.12 my case was that there were these xml bugs that sort of came and went, sometimes the same ones, sometimes related ones. im sure other people had different issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:is jvm backwards compatibility that bad? yes. everytime I deploy a new application server that needs to the IBM informix sdk, the sdk will only install with a very specific jdk file that I spent two afternoons figuring out with version would actually work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
say what you will about flash but you just dont see that kind of poo poo in the flash world. poo poo written literally over a decade ago still runs fine without modification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:50
|
|