Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 35.172.100.232

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

JAVA - everyone like it?

     
10:14 am on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member keyplyr is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 26, 2001
posts:12913
votes: 893


I have a very popular utility that is powered by JavaScript. Aside from the occasional user who forgets he has disabled browser support, this has served well. One drawback: the utility uses 5 images hundreds of times to achieve it's displays. Some users have altered their browser settings to "always check for newest file" hence the images are requested redundantly, instead of pulling them from cache. Often, this results in my server giving 403s due to exceeds.

One possible solution has been presented by a programmer friend; rebuild the utility using JAVA. So the question is, do we mind waiting for JAVA machines to load? Is it a big deal for dial-up users? Other comments about using JAVA? Thanks.

11:53 am on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 6, 2003
posts:630
votes: 0


Personally, I detest the use of java in web pages. It's shockingly slow even on fast machines, unstable and highly insecure. After installing and uninstalling it dozens of times I finally decided that I will not use it again and I will just miss out on any potentially useful applications of it on the web (not that I saw any of those when I was using it....)

I'm sure there are many out there who will champion the use of java, but for me I will be happy if I never see a java applet ever again. It's my least favourite web technology aside from Adobe's PDF-based browser hijacking ;)

12:05 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 11, 2003
posts:241
votes: 0


Checking for a newer version of the pictures every time, should just result in a short 304 not changed response, without sending the picture, which should not cause bandwidth or cpu load problems. Perhaps increase the number of sessions the webserver can handle? Sounds like the cheapest, and appropriate solution.

Going to Java, would I guess reduce the number of people who can use the app, as I would assume fewer people have java enabled than javascript.

8:05 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2001
posts:15756
votes: 0


I have to agree with pixel_juice, hate it. Mostly prompts me to leave a site.

sorry, isn't an overly constructive opinion but it is difficult to portray the vast depths of my dislike.

Are there no other options?

10:28 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member keyplyr is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 26, 2001
posts:12913
votes: 893


Checking for a newer version of the pictures every time, should just result in a short 304 not changed response, without sending the picture, which should not cause bandwidth or cpu load problems. Perhaps increase the number of sessions the webserver can handle? Sounds like the cheapest, and appropriate solution.

I've done all I can. I've implemented appropriate image expiry settings. Browser preferences override this. And my hosting company is not about to change their settings for one account since they use a very liberal threshold as it is.

My interest is in the general acceptance of JAVA by Joe User, not webmaster's war stories because they couldn't figure it out. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

10:59 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jomaxx is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 6, 2002
posts:4768
votes: 0


What everyone is trying to tell you is that Java is s-l-o-w and awful and people tend to hate it. Personally I keep it disabled until I have a specific need or desire to run a Java applet (very seldom). But if you have an insurmountable need to use it, then it's the best tool for the job so use it.
1:01 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from CA 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member encyclo is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2003
posts:9074
votes: 6


My interest is in the general acceptance of JAVA by Joe User

Most "Joe Users" back out of a page with a java applet - they are incredibly slow to load and synonymous with late-90s personal home pages. You'll probably get up to a third of your visitors who will leave because of an applet (I'm not kidding). But the problem is bigger than that - the dispute between Microsoft and Sun Microsystems over Java means that Windows XP was shipped with an ancient JVM, and users have to visit sun.com if they want something more up-to-date (which they seldom do). Don't quote me on this, but I think that some XP installations come with no JVM at all. The speed problem is related to this old JVM, and you may encounter difficulties making a complex applet work with old (MS) and new (Sun) JVMs. Also, higher security settings in IE6 block applets, whereas JS is more tolerated. This is without going into the accessibility problems that applets cause. Seriously, you don't want to go down this path.

Can you do something with Flash instead?

1:06 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 27, 2002
posts:1422
votes: 0


Anything but Java...slow and painful.
1:36 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 8, 2003
posts:548
votes: 0


Although I hate to, I'll have to agree. Despite the fact that Java was marketed (and to some part also developed) specifically with the its use on the web in mind, it has never lived up to this. The biggest problem with Java is that it isn't even close to being platform independent. Even a slight change in JVM/JRE/plugin version can render an applet unusable. This means that each Java applet tends to rely on a particular plugin version. Now what happens if two different applets are installed? You'll need two coexisting versions of the plugin. And this is something Sun hasn't really figured out yet. They say it works but last time I checked it didn't.

The second problem is that users would need to download the plugin when they visit your website for the 1st time. This is what people mean by "Java is slow". Once the plugin is downloaded, Java executes pretty fast.

The only scenario where I think Java is appropriate, is in big intranet applications runnning in a heterogenous environment where you control the plugin deployment and versioning.

It's always a pain to realize that technolgies as cumbersome and immature as HTML and JavaScript dominate conceptually superior technologies like Java.

2:20 am on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 29, 2003
posts:72
votes: 0


Added to Java being slow etc (well, it's not that slow on here, but this is a fast machine) - The only virii that have turned up on my computer according to norton are all in Java, I'm not including email ones as those get blocked before they get to somewhere I can see them (and the weekly check therefore doesn't bring them up). Hence no Java for any site unless I specifically need to use it...

Robin

1:20 pm on Feb 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 6, 2003
posts:630
votes: 0


>>My interest is in the general acceptance of JAVA by Joe User, not webmaster's war stories because they couldn't figure it out. Please stay on topic

Having never used java as a webmaster I can only comment as a user. As for figuring it out, I figured it out just fine, its just when I visit pages like BBC news with a java plugin installed and enabled, the page takes an extra 5 seconds to load while the JVM fired up (for their news ticker!). This is why I said I installed and uninstalled it so frequently.

Which also seemed to be right in line with the topic title ;)

However, if you were looking for stats rather than opinions, I did come across some from thecounter.com for May last year:

Java enabled - 32260380 -84%
Java disabled - 303888 -0%
Java unknown - 5549313 -14%

Unfortunately, java can be difficult to detect accurately, although I would assume that a large proportion of the unknowns do not have java enabled.

9:49 am on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member keyplyr is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 26, 2001
posts:12913
votes: 893


Sorry, didn't intent to sound cranky. I guess I just don't understand why anyone would install/uninstall a Java machine 2 dozen times. I installed Sun's JM once and that was that.

Counter.com stats for Feb 12 2004:

Java enabled: 143371596 (94%)
Java disabled: 1732121 (1%)
Java unknown: 7204118 (4%)

However after review, I do feel that JAVA takes too long to load - even for me with a lightning-fast connection and the latest hardware. Thanks.

10:18 am on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 13, 2003
posts:1054
votes: 3


Java is also blocked by several Firewalls by default. Prompted by a warning box that states "Java...What do you want to do", the option is set to "Block (recommended)".

It makes your site 'look bad' to Mr Joe Public if they have this Firewall installed.

It's a security concern, plus it is so sloooowwww, that as stated above, most people won't wait. Mr Joe Public clicks and if nothing is happening for a few seconds, they start to ask themselves "what have I done, why isn't this working, should I restart the machine? maybe I need to reinstall windows?" And yes, reinstalling windows seems like a common attitude amongst Joe Public when things start to go slow: "the disk must be too full, so I'll reinstall windows".....and by this point they are trying other sites which work fine. Then they think it's your site that is the problem and won't come back.

Almost regardless of it's use, Java is bad web design. There are a few exceptions when it may be needed, but it general there is an alternative. In your case I can't think of another alternative for using hundreds of (the same) graphics. But users may not like it.

6:56 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 19, 2004
posts:4
votes: 0


Personally, I wouldn't go for Java applets. The problems mentioned in the posts above make it advisable to find a different solution in all but a few specialized cases.

Just to clarify however, this argument applies only to Java applets. Where Java really shines is when it is used on the server side in the form of servlets and JSP (and EJB too, if you're talking about an enterprise application). Unfortunately, many people just think of applets and make the connection that all Java is bad. Not true.

8:05 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 13, 2003
posts:1054
votes: 3


Yes, no problem with server-side Java. Nothing wrong with that - but due to the description of the problem, it is clear that he/she is referring to client-side Java as they are talking of images being used many times but downloaded only once regardless of browser setting.

Server-side Java is good.
Client-side Java is bad in 99.9% of cases.

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members