Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 24th Sep 2010 22:56 UTC
Java Oracle has made some decisions about Java: in order to release JDK 7 in the middle of next year, they have decided to change priorities and specifically, postpone three features: Jigsaw, Lambda and Coin.
Thread beginning with comment 442615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: No thanks to Java
by Tuishimi on Sat 25th Sep 2010 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks to Java"
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's still faster and more efficient for large website engines than many web development platforms. I'm not particularly fond of it, but we've been using it for 8 years now. A recent, internal project I've been assigned to uses RoR/Hobo. While I enjoy developing with Ruby/Rails, it is slow in comparison to a Java-based site (even using JRuby) because of the chatty data management model it uses.

Trade offs. But Java hasn't quite died yet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: No thanks to Java
by kaiwai on Sat 25th Sep 2010 04:16 in reply to "RE[2]: No thanks to Java"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's still faster and more efficient for large website engines than many web development platforms. I'm not particularly fond of it, but we've been using it for 8 years now. A recent, internal project I've been assigned to uses RoR/Hobo. While I enjoy developing with Ruby/Rails, it is slow in comparison to a Java-based site (even using JRuby) because of the chatty data management model it uses.

Trade offs. But Java hasn't quite died yet.


But in terms of complexity how does RoR when compared to Java? The argument might hold that it is cheaper to get gruntier hardware than having to deal with the complexity of Java - that the cost of developer time is more expensive than just having a more heavy duty server. Thus the big argument is between efficiency versus throwing a bigger server at it - that something might be more efficient but if it requires specialised skills to get it to function properly then any gains are negated by the additional development costs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No thanks to Java
by Tuishimi on Sat 25th Sep 2010 04:19 in reply to "RE[3]: No thanks to Java"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

True enough. It has been an ongoing debate. I think the appearance of RoR in my current assignment was brought about because of that argument, and the argument that we save money in man hours developing with Ruby/Rails.

(Altho' I think the learning curve of Hobo has negated that, at least for this project).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No thanks to Java
by segedunum on Sat 25th Sep 2010 13:53 in reply to "RE[3]: No thanks to Java"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

RoR is undoubtedly a hell of a lot better and quicker to develop with, but the pain with it is definitely deployment. It's got better, but not as easy as with Java and other platforms.

Reply Parent Score: 2