Hi, I want to learn programming with Java (the environment). I thought
you programmed the JVM with the Java programming language, but it
turns out there are many languages to program the JVM with. Some are
designed for the the JVM and some converted for the task. This kind of
got me wondering if these new means are recommended for a newbie
programmer? I couldn't find any comparison writings between the
original Java PL and the newer languages.
So are Java programmers actually taking these languages seriously?
That is ditching Java for example Groovy or NetREXX?
Is it essential to know about the Java PL to understand JVM
programming? How would the Java programmer of tomorrow learn Java
today?
Thanks for listening.
> Hi, I want to learn programming with Java (the environment). I thought
> you programmed the JVM with the Java programming language, but it
> turns out there are many languages to program the JVM with. Some are
> designed for the the JVM and some converted for the task. This kind of
> got me wondering if these new means are recommended for a newbie
> programmer?
I would say not. If the implementation of some language used the JVM just as
an implementation detail, so that only "advanced" users knew that it (and the
Java libraries, etc) were there are all, then there would be no reason to learn
Java before learning that language. But, as far as I know, there are no
significant languages, or language implementations, which /do/ take that
approach.
But most -- probably all -- of them give great emphasis to the fact that they
run on the JVM, and that they can (to a greater or lesser degree) work together
with Java code, and more importantly, the huge set of existing Java libraries.
So you may as well start out with Java.
Warning: I mention the following somewhat tentatively, since it could easily be
misinterpreted. /If/ your primary interest is in writing programs which run on
the JVM, but have no interest in Java per-se (an unusual situation to be in),
then you might find it better to concentrate on Java 1.4 and before, since much
of what was added in 1.5 is implemented exclusively as hacks in the "compiler",
javac, and has no relevance at all to what the JVM does at runtime.
> I couldn't find any comparison writings between the
> original Java PL and the newer languages.
> So are Java programmers actually taking these languages seriously?
> That is ditching Java for example Groovy or NetREXX?
I haven't noticed any such tendency so far. I, personally, expect that we'll
see more use of scripting languages within the overall Java-based world than we
have so far, but I don't expect much in the way of other JVM languages
displacing Java as the primary vehicle for creating code for the JVM.
> Is it essential to know about the Java PL to understand JVM
> programming?
With the above caveat that modern Java adds stuff which is not needed for
understanding the JVM, I would say that learning Java is the easiest route into
learning the Java runtime (platform and libraries).
-- chris
On Apr 9, 3:39 am, "laestad...@gmail.com" <laestad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi, I want to learn programming with Java (the environment). I thought
> you programmed the JVM with the Java programming language, but it
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Thanks for listening.
Java as a programming language is still strong, and I don't see it
being replaced by "alternate" languages. Java is also currently more
widespread. I've heard of a few other languages that run in the JVM,
but I haven't actually come across and projects that we written in
them. Not that I've actively sought them out, either...
Other languages that run in the JVM: Jython and Nice.
laestadian@gmail.com - 10 Apr 2007 07:12 GMT
Thanks for clearing up my confusion and for the sound advise.