quote:Original post by Raghar
More readable guess what.

Readability is subjective. Java has cleaner syntax. I can write confusing programs in either language.

quote:Multiple entry points and better debugers than C ones. gives you the second.

Better debuggers? Again that is subjective. You''d be hard pressed to beat VS.net''s.

quote:Class encapsulation that is guaranteed with tools that use Java structure to their advantage gives you third.

How is this any different from C++ classes?

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
If you meant templates, then let me tell you Java has far easier memory management, dynamic garbage collection, elegant dead reference detection system, memory leak prevention mechanism and more

I don''t really think it''s fair to compare templates to memory management. Why not compare templates to generics?

Java''s new generics system is both better and worse than C++''s template system.

In Java one can specify that a generic type parameter must be a subclass of a particular class (or implement a particular interface). This is handy if you want to define a generic class or method that operates on Collections, say.

Although C++ would still detect an attempt to use .begin() on a float, Java detects the error closer to where it actually occurs.

C++''s templates have features that are absent from Java (and, as it happens, C#). In C++, templates can have value parameters as well as type parameters. This allows the compiler to generate more efficient code for types such as matrix<4, 4>, in terms of both speed and space.

If Java supported this, it would allow some bounds-checking to be performed at compile-time: mat.get(5,9) would obviously be invalid if Java knew the size of the matrix at compile-time.

In addition, C++ allows for specialisation of templates. This allows for further optimisation. In the running example, the implementation of matrix<4,4> could be optimised to automatically use CPU extensions for multiplying 4x4 matrices, if any are available.

Java can specialise in as much as it could define a Matrix44<T> class that extends the Matrix<T> class. However, the advantage of C++ specialisation is that adding matrix<4,4> automatically applies that specialisation to all 4-by-4 matrices, whereas in Java one would need to replace references to Matrix with references to Matrix44 wherever a 4-by-4 matrix was being used.

Another significant advantage in C++ is that, unlike Java, it allows for generic parameter types to be value types. This would allow for efficient storage of value types in Vectors or Hashtables, amongst other things.

The reason Java doesn''t allow this is also the reason for one of the advantages it has over C++: Java''s generics are designed so that, unlike in C++, only one copy of a generic method or the methods of a generic class needs to be compiled.

That makes it easy to distribute generics in libraries without having to worry about what will happen if somebody tries to use your generic with a type you haven''t compiled in.

In summary:

C++: Value parameters, specialisation, type parameters may be value types
Java: Type parameter constraints, single-compilation

Type constraints could be added to C++ without issue.

The single-compilation feature is mutually incompatible with C++''s implementation of value parameters and the orthogonal type parameters.

You can redefine how value parameters and type parameters work -- value parameters act like ordinary parameters, and type parameters are always reference types (value types are boxed as necessary: requires the introduction of boxed types into C++). That would allow the single-compilation rule to be observed but would negate the efficiency benefits that C++ templates have over Java generics.

It seems to me that Java generics are more likely to be widely used than C++ templates because updates to Java generics can be distributed in binary libraries such that any program that used the old version of the generic will have no trouble using the new version. In C++, on the other hand, not only do you have to go out of your way to put your template code into seperate libraries, but a consumer of your library will only be able to use the template functions that you''ve compiled in, which defeats the purpose of templates.

CoV

quote:Original post by JohanOfverstedt
For Java, the user of your app must have the JAVA RUNTIME. Most home users don''t. And if your app is a small one (A couple megs or less) then it''s a major pain in the butt. Should the users have to download many megabytes just to use your little app.

And, by default, java programs don''t have an exe file to start them which is what most Windows users are used to.

DISCLAIMER: If any of the above statements are incorrect, feel free to give me a good hard slap

My game: Swift blocks

[edited by - JohanOfverstedt on January 25, 2004 4:58:06 PM]

*SLAP*

Most Windows users are used to an icon on the desktop or an item in the Start menu.

CoV

quote:Original post by DerAnged
cocoa on mac gcc on linux mingW or VC++ on windows C++ isnt cross platform eh? (c++ is faster to)(yet asm is faster than cpp)

Um, I think you mean Carbon, not Cocoa for C++ Mac programming. Since Cocoa is made with Objective-C. Basically, if you want a cross-platform title, and want to use the same libraries, with a nice API, Java would be an easier development cycle than if you used C++. If you are caring more about optimization, then you should have C or C++ as the two languages that enter the front of your mind. It all depends on what the application you are making needs to do. Although in most cases, the programmer will use their own tastes to determine what language will be used when they can.