Flutterby™! : Java Sucks

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Java Sucks

2009-04-16 17:32:37.260922+00 by meuon 7 comments

I have exactly ONE thing I need to have Java 1.6 working in a web browser for, as a virtual KVM for a nice server. Using Firefox and Ubuntu 8.10 on a brand new laptop. It works on my desktop and other laptop, they have older versions of the JRE already installed. Java "changed" there is no longer a "sun-java6-plugin" and manually linking the files into the /plugins directory has not worked. I just started to download the IBM version of Java 6. Can in be worse? Filled out lots of forms, that won't accept my work e-mail address because it's mike.harrison@.. and I died laughing when I trued to download the .tgz file because it uses some funky Java downloader, which required Java... Which is what I was trying to install. I found the plain http download link, and am waiting for the download to finish. ps: I own: mysticjava.coom and mysticjavacafe.com which are for sale, but I am so tempted to make them into a "yet another java sucks" website.

[ related topics: Spam Invention and Design Software Engineering Work, productivity and environment Java ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-16 17:42:12.958727+00 by: Dan Lyke

I dunno, "Java sucks" is so 1995. Unfortunately, nothing's changed since then. Java seems like a pretty big chunk of the "this software is going to suck" filter.

Two days ago I had to disable Java in my browser to get uploads to Costco's photo printing working right. I'm guessing I won't notice the lack.

Do the GIJ or GCJ Java plug-ins work for you? Those are Ubuntu packages...

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-16 18:49:18.004034+00 by: meuon

I went back to 32bit Ubuntu 8.10 and it all installed properly:
aptitude install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin
The IBM and Sun Java 6 (1.6?) JRE's both fail to support 64 bit as a plugin as as a "start".. WTF? One of the UtiliFlex competitors is rewriting their stuff in Java, I think it's a great idea. For them ;)

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-17 13:10:11.638682+00 by: JT

I tried 64bit ubuntu by accident. (using wubi and not paying attention to what was downloading) Although I'm sure it has some great uses, using more than the basic system wasn't working out for me at all. Java kept causing problems, I couldn't install etherape or skype, and anything that was 3rd party according to Ubuntu was a no-go.

For what I use a computer for, 32 bit is working just fine.

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-17 17:58:51.469217+00 by: Mars Saxman

I established an "if it's Java, it's going to suck and I won't use it" policy shortly after encountering my first Java app somewhere back in the late '90s. Once every year or two I accidentally download something which doesn't advertise its Java underpinnings; all these years and however many versions later, Java apps still, without exception, suck.

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-17 23:05:45.116947+00 by: spc476

Not having used Java since 1997, I wonder if my rant against Java is outdated or not ...

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-19 23:42:35.616399+00 by: ebradway

spc476: Nice comment

Shame really, as Java is a nice concept, just poorly executed.

Unfortunately, it still holds today - just compounded. Java has been through many disparate executions - all of them varyingly poor. So now, if you use Java apps regularly, you end up with multiple versions of something poorly executed.

I wish the Sun/IBM deal had gone through. IBM may have had it's flops but it is probably the only organization with both the means and motivation to possibly take on Java and fix it.

#Comment Re: made: 2009-04-20 14:14:49.217488+00 by: ebradway

Hmmmm... Now Oracle's buying Sun. Unfortunately, Oracle has as much motivation as IBM to Java but, in my opinion, lacks the means. When I look at other Oracle-developed languages (PL/SQL, Pro*C), I see things that are functional but unnecessarily cryptic.