OSDev.org

I was wondering if there is some really good alternative to Java that can be used for platform independent programming?

IMHO Java sucks when it comes to performance.
You have a few Java apps running and it takes most of the system processing time.

Depending on what you consider a "good" alternative.

I don't know how Python (with wxWindows, GTK, or Qt bindings) does compare performance-wise.

But C++ with a good choice of cross-platform GUI and utility libraries can go quite some way, depending on what you have in mind.

I would love it if I really had the power of C/C++.
What I am looking for is a tool that would help me in easing my work, especially to replace the multiple telnets and FTP's I have to do to the various servers.
If I could have a single tabbed interface to them etc, from which I could also execute commands (like CLI commands), run scripts, compile and run code etc. etc.
The problem is that I keep shifting from Linux and Windows so if I did write something it would have to be good for both.

That doesn't sound very performance-critical to me. REBOL claims to be just the thing for that, and a friend of mine (DevL, he is sometimes even around on this forum) found it to be pretty nice - but expensive.

I'd try my hands on Python/wxWindows, Perl/Tk (if you are masochist) or Java - can't see how performance can be that big of an issue unless your hardware is severly limited. Hell, I'm running Eclipse on a 500 MHz PIII, and while it could sure be faster, it works.

In some cases all we have is a Remote Desktop connection which is shared by several users.
When each uses a Java app, things get real slow.
Plus I have this sort of aversion to doing something I really like in Java if it can be done with some flavor of C (if you know what I mean)

Pardon me while I vent; I don't want anyone to take what I say here too seriously, as it's mostly just my frustration with the programming field in general talking.

<flame irrationality="100%">
I really dislike using C for non-system tasks; it simply is too primitive for application work. Using C or assembly for general-purpose programming is the very definition of 'premature optimization'.

But then, the typical alternatives aren't much better. there's C++, which manages to combine the worst aspects of C, Ada and Smalltalk; or Java and C#, which are the same but more hyped and less efficient. These are languages which can only look good only in comparison to an utter catastrophe, such as Pascal or Visual Basic. Then there's Perl... no, let's not got there.

Unfortunately, the languages I do have some remaining tolerance for - Python and Scheme - are too marginal, too slow, too ideosyncratic, and too limited in their support software to be practical. If I wanted to create my own tools for everything, I'd be working on my OS, not on someone else's crudware apps.

I'm quite frankly fed up with all the existing languages, as a matter of fact, but sadly I'm at a loss as to how to design a better one.
</flame>

However, as a practical matter, I'm perfectly willing to work in any language - even Intercal - if I'm being paid to do it.

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Unfortunately, the languages I do have some remaining tolerance for - Python and Scheme - are too marginal, too slow, too ideosyncratic, and too limited in their support software to be practical. If I wanted to create my own tools for everything, I'd be working on my OS, not on someone else's crudware apps.

In addition to to what you mention, I'd like to note that I like Ruby a lot. I think it nicely combines the best parts of Lisp and Smalltalk.

But, in real life, I end up using Python (which feels like a bastard son of Basic and Lisp to me) almost as much as Ruby, and the reason is interesting: of all the scripting language I've tried, Python really has the best interoperatibility with the world.

Most of the I need to write something quickly, I first check from RAA (the Ruby Application Archive) whether there's a library for any necessary bindings (I any are needed). Then I realize that something critical is missing, and then I end up writing it in Python, because Python really talks with more or less everything.

Btw: in case you haven't noticed (and probably haven't) there's been quite a bit of talk in Lisp circles about the future of Lisp (and things like whether Common Lisp is actually a good thing at all). Something interesting might actually come out of there too.

A recent lead article in a prominent German comp mag (iX) featured the various "script" languages around, and pretty much summed it up with "Perl rules the field, Ruby and Python are strong contenders with Python being in the lead for support and popularity, the rest fights for single-percent market shares". As far as I remember.

As for Python, I liked their credo, which they bastarized from Perl's "There is more than one way to do it": "There should be - preferably only - one obvious way to do it." Can't tell really whether they stood up to it, haven't done anything Python so far.

I find it that Python sometimes has the problem (that is actually worse in languages like C) that the "one, obvious" answer can radically change when a single, small, additional requirement is added. Ruby IMHO tends to avoid this better.

Ofcourse, this has to do with language's orthogonality: if different things are done with different paradigms, then at some point there is going to be a case where one will want to mix the paradigms, and if that can't be done in a nice way, then one will have to redesign at least part of one's program.

Scheme (and other applicative languages) are actually quite good at this: because everything is a function call, there's really just one paradigm. Macros do add some complications, but those usually either write complicated functions from simple descriptions, or reduce the requirement for writing lambda-functions everywhere.

Actually, even Scheme sometimes has paradigm clashes. If you think of it, we actually have to paradigms in Scheme: the "function calling" and the "value returning". Fortunately, these are easy to glue together:

;; Function that calls a function with the result of a read-char
(define (call-with-read-char f . readparam)
(f (apply read-char readparam)))

As one would expect, these types of functions are actually used in Scheme programming quite often; enough, that the call-with- prefix is more or less standard by now. Because Scheme is "tail-recursive", this works a lot more times than one would initially think. (In fact this is related to continuation passing style which is probably the most commonly used way to model control flow in things like denotational semantics).

Now, if you have a language that does more than calls functions, then you will inevitably have paradigm clashes that are much harder to resolve than this particular case.

Maybe D Programming Language?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/

I'd add my vote for Ruby. After I finally bothered to have a look at it some half a year back (due to all the hype about Ruby on Rails), I've been writing a lot of code in it and it has displaced Python, which I used to use a lot, as my favorite all-purpose language.

This is saying a lot, since Python isn't half bad. Ruby just manages to be more consistent and elegant (no more explicit self argument to instance methods!) and the OO meta-programming facilities it offers are second to none (well, except, of course Smalltalk, its major inspiration).

I'm currently writing a Scheme interpreter and compiler in Ruby, which has allowed me to really delve deep into the language. Also, been playing around with the OpenGL interface to create a small solar system simulation. Ruby rocks for both purposes (unless you want to start counting CPU cycles, naturally).

(There's a free online version of the 1st edition of Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide, which should serve as a very readable introduction to anyone interested.)

Arto wrote:Also, been playing around with the OpenGL interface to create a small solar system simulation.

Hey, you! What's your business emulating my little home LAN, eh?

Oh, wait, you mean planets and stuff, right? Sorry, got carried away for a second...

;D

Solar wrote: Hey, you! What's your business emulating my little home LAN, eh?

LOL ;D

Don't laugh too loud, SOLARSYSTEM is my LAN's ESSID and workgroup. My nick is "solar", and my wife is nicked "luna". And today it's one year sharp since our little star has been born, though she doesn't have an account yet on any of my machines.

Solar wrote: Hey, you! What's your business emulating my little home LAN, eh?

Oh, wait, you mean planets and stuff, right? Sorry, got carried away for a second...

Sorry, I wasn't aware that someone had already usurped half the astronomical dictionary ;D Yeah, you know, the big chunks of rock and gas flying around up there on their perpetual merry-go-around, so, nothing personal.

Solar wrote: Don't laugh too loud, SOLARSYSTEM is my LAN's ESSID and workgroup. My nick is "solar", and my wife is nicked "luna".

...but, shouldn't that then be "Sol", not "Solar" ?