Teen Programmers Unite  
 

 

Return to forum top

C++ Or Java ?

Posted by mattlynam2002 [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 08:34:19 AM

Hey Everyone !
Im just starting to program and dont know which lanuage to learn.What do all you think ? C++ or Java ?
And how long did it take you to learn any of these lanuages ?
Please Help !!!!

Posted by Psion [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 09:15:36 AM

I think Java is the better of the two you've listed. It should take very little time to learn if you know OO concepts (and are proficient in another real programming language) already, and still take very little time if you don't but are a quick study.

That said, I don't think either is a language you'd want to learn for the sake of learning a well-designed language. :P For that, see SML, OCaml, or Haskell.

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 10:51:00 AM

C++ and Java are very good languages, but if you just started programming, then you might want to start with something else. I would recomend Python, Scheme, or JavaScript (If you know any or much web design).

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 02:00:47 PM

No question about it ... Java.

There's no need to worry about linking etc... when your learning Java, and no need to worry about pointers. Trust me, Java. Oh and when your just getting used to it, you'll be able to make your own GUI (Graphical User Interfaces - GUI) fairly quickly without learning MFC, wxWindows or the 32 bit API.

I especially recomend this book ... its so simple and clear.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0953931013/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-811...
- First Course in Programming with Java
- Tony Mullins
- ISBN: 0953931013 2nd revised edition

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 02:27:23 PM

There very similiar, learn one and you can learn the (basics of the) other in about a week.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 02:32:25 PM

If you learn Java, and then move onto C++ - C++ will njust appear to be adding to Java, whereas if you do it the opposite way around Java feels like your reducing C++ to a more simple form. Plus with Java you'll probably use Suns version, which everyone uses, so it'll be much easier to find support for it rather than finding support for one of the many implementations of c++.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at August 31, 2002, 09:39:45 PM

Neither.

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 12:47:06 AM

I'd say both, C++ is the dominant language used today, and Java is moving to the top very quickly.

Posted by gian [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 05:53:42 AM

I wouldn't call that a particularly valid generalisation.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 08:55:11 AM

Java is moving up, but I don't think its great for anything else than learning.

Learn Java; get a grip of the concepts of programming, then learn C++ for practical programming of Real World Aps.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 08:57:38 AM

And I've just noticed mattlynam2002 is another one of our one post wonders:

Other 1 post wonders this month:

vexoid 1
vikram_1982 1
mattlynam2002 1
Sirfer 1
Jasaeka 1
homegrown89 1
mc0282 1
PopGirl1528 1
sweetbabygirl236 1
brian0918 1
Syfonic 1
steven 1
creativepublic 1
mackrune 1
SwimLax3 1
CaffAddict 1
iCARUS 1
hunterstar10 1
hariprakashk 1

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 10:30:02 AM

I still wonder why people do that. Maybe our answers scare them away or something?

I'm learning java now myself, and you could probably get a better start with some of the others mentioned like SML etc. I'd just steer clear from C - C++ for now.

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at September 01, 2002, 10:57:11 PM

"I still wonder why people do that. Maybe our answers scare them away or something?"
He probly wanted a quik answer, and found it on a website or something somewhere else first. Or what if he got killed after posting that (Hope not...)?

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 08:23:27 AM

If their profiles contain their real email addresses maybe we should remind them of their manners with a freindly "if you want to take you have to give" message. Then again, maybe not, their probably pretty poor programmers who have little to contribute.

Posted by mattlynam2002 [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 02:54:52 PM

yer i am a piss poor programmer but im learning and dont need you ,regretfuldaydreamer, taking da piss etc.Thanx to everyone else but one more question please.You all have nearly recommended Java,but i want do be able to create things like operating systems ,windows programmes etc (eventually)In java can i do this or not ?

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 03:08:32 PM

No, you can't write an Operating System in Java. Well, sort of. You _could_ use JNI to interface with low level C routines and code the core of the system (e.g. kernel, low level I/O) in C. But then you would still need a JVM to run the Java programs, unless you used a native machine code compiler like GCJ. You probably don't want to write native Windows programs in Java, just use SWING for the GUI to keep it portable.

I still think you shouldn't bother with either C++ or Java and learn a better language like Scheme.

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 03:24:05 PM

Unless you feel like writing on an embeded system that interprets java byte code (most new cell phones, PDA's).

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 05:37:24 PM

Sorry, mattlynam2002, it's just in my nature to do that, since there are so many 1 post wonders around here, I looked at the permanent history too, and you aren't new here, deepest apologies.

Am I forgiven?

OS - No (well actually, I think our OS on our terminals in school are the linux kernel or something like that with a built in JVM and the rest of the OS is written in Java. Your gonna have to learn ASM and C or that (and ASM(Assembly) wasn't on your original list)


Windows Programs - AWT/SWING - I find it dead easy to use, though it's a little slow at runtime. But it's your best bet if your a begginer

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:17:34 PM

Its only if the processor is built to interpret java byte code. Which I can guarantee you it isn't.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:27:17 PM

Oh, I don't have a clue about Linux, so I wouldn't have a clue.

I'm saving to get Red Hat

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:28:19 PM

Err, Redhat is free.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:41:41 PM

I meant the CD box from the shop. Probably cost me more, ut still. I'll probably try and get a new hard drive whilst I'm at it.

I either eed a part time job or ... a part time job.

I spend most of my Pocet Money (My parents operate on a "You get ?5 a week pocket money and ?10 a week for dinners", which I never buy, although with the schools new cahless swipe card system, they can find out exactly what I have been buying for lunch, *WORRYING*) on CD's, Magazines and a bottle of Diet Coke each day (Do you have Diet Coke or Coca Cola Light in America? Diet Cokes way nicer, though Coca Cola Lights slightly frutier).

And then when I add in:

? Computer Equipment/Software/Games
? I want decks(Gonna cost me at least ?1000)
? I want a windsurfing board, sail, boom, mast and kit (A Bic Techno is what I think I want, but I have to do some reading)

I want a lot in life!


Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:41:45 PM

No, RedHat is Free or Libre. If you want the boxed set of discs with a nice printed manual, you have to pay for it. And about java processors--they do exist. Google for "java processor" or something. I believe Sun had something like the MAJIC proccesor a few years back that was just a real-world device that ran Java bytecode (since the JVM is just a Virtual Machine). I do believe that there are other Java processers being made now.

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:44:43 PM

But they are intended for small devices, like cell phones. Not home computers, which interpret assembly.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:45:06 PM

Oh

I do want the boxed set of disks, with the manual, it'd take me forever to download the whole lot on a 56k (Downloading in school ain't an option)

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 06:48:26 PM

okay then, there are places that sell Redhat versions that are just downloaded and burnt, for people who want the downloadable versions and not the packaged expensive ones. Although you still pay for shipping and the CD and I'm not making sense anymore.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 07:00:14 PM

I think I'll just stick to the boxed ones and be sfe, ?70 is worth the peace of mind.

Should I go Standard or professional when I get hold of the money?

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 07:01:51 PM

Standard if you really have to get RedHat.

Posted by mop [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 07:07:53 PM

And if you really have to pay that much. The only thing your paying for is callin support (which is pointless) and a perdy box.

Posted by regretfuldaydreamer [send private reply] at September 02, 2002, 07:16:50 PM

Oh OK, I'll choose the burnt version then.

Posted by mattlynam2002 [send private reply] at September 03, 2002, 12:00:13 PM

you are forgiven regretfuldaydreamer ! thanx for all the help everyone !
Oh and i got redhat linux 7 for free from a neighbour and its boxed,but i dont use it cos i operate with windows and dont have a clue how to use linux !

You must be logged in to post messages and see which you have already read.

Log on
Username:
Password:
Save for later automatic logon

Register as a new user
 
Copyright TPU 2002. See the Credits and About TPU for more information.