Re: Effort to program in Java, is it efficient....

    Hi Mike,

    As long as we're quoting Jefferson:

    "Delay is preferable to error." - Thomas Jefferson

    I'm sure you realize that there's not going to be a one-off answer, nor
can anyone do a good job for you without understanding your situation.
Also, since this *is* a Java mailing list, you probably aren't going to get
a lot of responses that run down Java.

    And no one can answer

> So, can it be done in a simple manner and what would be the best
> implementation to keep it simple?

without knowing what you are trying to do.

    Now that I've told you what we ( or I, at least  ) can't do, I'll speak
in general terms myself.  Java is not a bazooka, although anyone can make it
one.  J2EE, which it appears you've jumped into, can be an atomic bomb.

    To anyone who has dabbled in SmallTalk and gone through development
with C++, what you are saying is not new.  OOP has failed in many places.
The reason, though, is generally that these places have not really embraced
OO technologies.  Just as nearly every C programmer became a C++
programmer - by virtue of having a C++ compiler - many "Java" programmers
are writing procedural programs that might as well be RPG, other than
syntax.

    This is not necessarily a bad thing; the syntax is fairly easy and the
API and tools give you an incredible amount of capability.  The problem is
that most won't own up to the fact that they are using it that way, and
missing most of the bang for the buck.

    I would expect initial projects to be more expensive due to A) new
technology and B) the idea is to develop reusable classes and components
that increase reliability and save time and money in the future.  That takes
thought and design, which aren't cheap.  When each project starts from
scratch, as is usually the case from the paragraph above, there is little
productivity gain.

    As a concrete case, an AS/400 - RPG shop approached me to teach an
introductory Java class some time back.  I told them up front that the
technology failed in many shops and gave the reasons why.  Then I began the
class with OO concepts, etc.  After four half-day classes, they cancelled.
As best I could tell, they were unhappy that they weren't writing programs
immediately.  That particular decision has, to date, cost them in the high
six, and may be hitting seven, figures.  And each project starts from
scratch.

    You can probably tell that I could go on for a while, but I'll try to
close it down shortly for now.

> 2.)  I have an end user

    My favorite question is "why do you say that?"  Ask the user to bring in
the studies.  Do they compare apples to apples?  Who sponsored the studies?

    I'd also say use the right tool for the job, while considering immediate
and longer term benefits.  I don't know if I've ever seen a better
reporting tool than RPG.  At the same time, if there were a chance that the
app might be needed on another platform later, I'd probably still write it
in Java.  And you may need that atomic bomb, but maybe not.

> 2.)  How does the JAVA language/environment stack
> up to other technologies?

    Again, this is so general that I don't believe anyone can give a
reasonable answer without knowing what you are trying to do, along with your
goals and priorities.  J2EE, for example, is an amazing tool, if you need
its capabilities.  If you don't, you're back to the atomic bomb, when you
need a hammer.  Java can be a hammer or anything in between.

    Last, some things aren't easy by nature, and I mean tasks, not
necessarily the language or tools.  I would bet money that, other
than in a few exceptional shops, I could walk in and show that most
RPG programs, even from vendors, don't handle multiuser concurrency
and integrity well at all.  That's not RPG's fault.


                                                         Joe Sam

Joe Sam Shirah -        http://www.conceptgo.com
conceptGO         -        Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
Java Filter Forum:       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/
Just the JDBC FAQs: http://www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
Going International?    http://www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
Que Java400?             http://www.jguru.com/faq/Java400


----- Original Message -----
From: <Mike.Crump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <JAVA400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:20 AM
Subject: Effort to program in Java, is it efficient....


> I'm getting some feedback in my company that while general in nature has
me
> thinking about Java in the big picture.   The two themes I'm getting are:
>
> 1.)  It's to complicated - it's a bazooka when we just need a bullet.
Now,
> granted some of that can be how we are doing things so it's not just
> pertaining to the language.
>
> 2.)  I have an end user with technical skills who keeps claiming to have
> studies that shows when a similar development project is done between Java
> and some other sort of technology that the Java side always takes more
time
> and is more expensive.
>
> I apologize for the nature of these questions but I'm not sure on how to
be
> more specific but:
>
> 1.)  In broad terms can Java be implemented in a simple manner and does
> that make sense in a lot of cases.  In my company we have probably over
> complicated our environment with some original implementations of EJB's
> that we are now regretting.  So, I realize that we may be the source of
the
> problem......
> So, can it be done in a simple manner and what would be the best
> implementation to keep it simple?
>
> 2.)  How does the JAVA language/environment stack up to other
technologies?
>
>
> Michael Crump
> Manager, Computing Services
> Saint-Gobain Containers
> 1509 S. Macedonia Ave.
> Muncie, IN  47302
> (765)741-7696
> (765)741-7012 f
> (800)428-8642
>
> "I shall often go wrong through defect of judgement.  When right, I shall
> often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of
> the whole ground.  I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will
> never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who
> may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts."  Thomas
> Jefferson
>