Tomcat Based Webmail

[Scott Elcomb]

Perhaps that explains my reluctance to play with Java; I don't have
any issues with it as a language, but I find many apps and their
deployment (to the web) fraught with trouble - like unnessesary bloat.

(apologies for any spelling errs - sent via mobile... More later...)


On 1/8/09, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> | From: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org>
>>
>> | Well no idea there, since I simply avoid anything to do with java on
>> | principle.  Don't forget to prepare to have 10times the hardware
>> | resources available of what something like php would reuqire to do the
>> | same job.
>> |
>> | All I ever see from tomcat (and other java servers) is awfully slow
>> | service.  Bell canada's web site is one of the worst I have tried to
>> | deal with.  The world will be a better place when java is banned from
>> | use.
>>
>> I expect that you are right but I don't know why.
>>
>> The folks who implement Java have worked really hard to get the
>> efficiency up and tell plausible stories about that.  Are they wrong?
>>
>> Is the problem caused by bloated libraries that are elegantly layered
>> too deeply?
>>
>> Is the problem due to Java programmers?  Perhaps quantity, not
>> quality?
>>
>> Is the problem that the systems coded in Java are just too big to do
>> well?
>>
>> What do you think is going on?
>
> What I have seen is that:
>
> a) There are Java frameworks that get mighty heavyweight;
>
> b) Organizations get enthralled with using those frameworks to allow
> them to have naive developers working on "enterprise applications."
>
> I have also seen a tendancy for developers to use Java naively and
> ignore that operations have costs, both in terms of memory usage and
> in terms of "Big O."
>
> C developers know that it costs something every time they do a
> malloc(); they see that cost.  Every time they create a pointer, they
> have to manage the memory, so they are excruciatingly aware of the
> costs.
>
> In contrast, instantiating an instance of an object class, in Java,
> causes similar costs to be paid, but as the cost wasn't visible up
> front, the developer might be blissfully unaware that there even was a
> cost.  Especially if they are naive :-).
>
> And yes, the more layers there are between the developer and the code
> that gets executed, the more difficult it may be to realize what the
> costs could be.
> --
> http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
> Douglas William Jerrold  - "The only athletic sport I ever mastered
> was backgammon."
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists