MAY
3
2007

Qt Jambi Released Under GPL

Yesterday Trolltech released the second beta of Qt Jambi, the Qt API for Java. With this release we also released the source code including the Generator under GPL, opening the option for making KDE libs accessible to Java. Though it does not work together with gcj, it does work together with the open source Harmony Virtual machine and runtime. For more information look at my release blog or the official press release.

Comments

I don't use Java, and I pretty much hate it, but I know not everyone feels the same way.

Thank you TrollTech!


By Benjamin Long at Thu, 2007/05/03 - 5:00am

This is pretty sweet.

At school we learn Java, so this allowes me to start learning Qt before i get to learn C++

This will give alot of students the chance to make KDE programs.


By jeffrey at Thu, 2007/05/03 - 5:00am

And with Java being open sourced as well, this will really turn it into the best choice for developing for KDE using a higher level language.

Although I still prefer the performance of C++, I feel much more comfortable with Java now than with the legal uncertainty surrounding Mono and .NET.

Performance of Java has also improved dramatically with 1.6.


By Leo S at Thu, 2007/05/03 - 5:00am

Java is a safe language. C++ is an artistic language. Generally you can say what can go wrong will go wrong.

It is a pity that it does not work yet with gcj.


By Andre at Thu, 2007/05/03 - 5:00am

What's missing in GCJ for this to work? Is it just Generics support? In that case, it should work with the GCJ in the soon-to-be-released Fedora 7.


By Kevin Kofler at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Java is a SLOW language. And it is safe (as in "the programmer is so stupid, that he has to be put in a room with rubber handles"). This "safety" is what i HATE in Pascal (though I admit, it's not as bad as Java in this regard).

As of C++, it's (bleah!) OO. An "artistic" language - that would be C. BTW, all the power of C++ comes from the fact, that when you need speed / low mem usage / code clarity / whatever , you can simply cast off all this ugly OO bloat, and write in a clean, procedural, C-ish manner. Java makes it practically impossible.


By zonk at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

"Java is a SLOW language."

Here you're just showing that you don't know what you're talking about. If you look around at language benchmarks you'll find that Java's speed is quite high and actually does rival C++. Java's main failing is that its GC scheme and reliance on heap allocation hogs memory. In large programs this can result in a slowdown.

Research has shown massive productivity increases using "safe" languages because they do so much to improve debugging and maintenance. You can continue to use languages from decades past if you feel like it though, it's just that you will render yourself irrelevant.

C++ has to be the worst language ever invented in terms of code clarity, the fact that you mention this as one of its strengths further suggests your state of confusion.

"write in a clean, procedural, C-ish manner"

You are certainly welcome to do this in Java as well, there is nothing preventing it. Java provides you with the same basic primitives as C (except structs), just make all of your methods static and treat classes as namespace groupings rather than data types to be instantiated. Few people are dumb enough to do this, however.


By Nate at Thu, 2007/08/23 - 5:00am

Java is probably a better language than C++. One of the reasons is that Java code must be true object oriented while this appears optional with C++.

It's use has been limited by the fact that Sun never released a compiler that produced binary code and the VCISC processors never showed up either. The GCJ compiler can greatly improve the performance of Java by compiling it to native binary code. Therefore, I am quite disapointed to learn that the Jambi library doesn't work with GCJ. We can only hope that GNU will fix this.


By James Richard Tyrer at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Saying that object orientation is the One True Programming Style is wrong for the same reason that it was wrong for procedural programming back in the day. On the other hand there is less of Java to learn than there is of C++. But then you don't need to learn all of C++ to use it...


By Michael Pyne at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

> But then you don't need to learn all of C++ to use it...

...and we all love insecure software. :|


By Carlo at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Java is a terrible language. Let's pick a few issues at random: Java throws away part of the types during compilation. Java doesn't support metaprogramming. Java doesn't support operator overloading, so e.g. == doesn't mean what it should mean, but rather pointer equals. Java doesn't support smart pointers. Java doesn't support RAII or any other resource management scheme, making it hugely vulnerable to leaks.

Do I have to go on? :) My list is very long. Not that C++ is perfect --- the pletora of implicit conversion and the lack of typeof operator comes to mind, but for what I loosely call the statically typed languages, I have found none better.

Just my opinion. Java is a nice introductionary language for school and such. Like Pascal was.


By Esben Mose Hansen at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

In Java == means exactly what it should mean, i.e. are two object the *same* object? .equals compares two objects for equality and is class-specific. I don't see any problem with this.


By Flavio at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

It's just a matter of the situation. If you compare two strings for instance, you don't want to know if they are the exactly same object, but if they just are equal. If you care about string references at all, an intelligent memory management should instead hold just one string-object instance for the same string and split it up if someone modifies his local reference to the string, so == would actually mean equal by design.

The same appears to many other different classes.

lg
Erik


By Erik at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

actually, the object class ( mother of all classes) has the "equals" method. You can define object equality by simply overriding this method. It actually has BETTER overriding of an "operator" ; its just that the implementation is in a more OO way.

Java is a strongly typed language ( or at least it used to be until IBM mucked with it in 1.5, introducing the stupid notion of annotations). This way there is less likelihood of corrupting the thread heap with pointers. Exceptions are either those that are thrown by programmer or are well defined runtime exceptions ( I haven't seen any uncaught exception thrown as just 'Exception' or 'Throwable').

C/C++, OTOH, we all know, can just do a 'segmentation fault' that explains, well, nothing.


By v m at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

> It's just a matter of the situation. If you compare two strings for instance,
> you don't want to know if they are the exactly same object, but if they just
> are equal. If you care about string references at all, an intelligent memory
> management should instead hold just one string-object instance for the same
> string and split it up if someone modifies his local reference to the string,
> so == would actually mean equal by design.

hmmmmm. nice description of how it is done in java.....


By marc at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Really? I see a lot of bugs stemming from "cheese" == my_cheese_string being false sometimes, but not always. Most other languages use === of object-id comparison, while == test equality, and I find this a far superior approach. Note also that .equals() is asymmetric... (a.equals(b) == b.equals(a)) is false in some cases. Another behaviour that is a frequent source of bugs.

But I could go on for days about the shortages of Java, and just get everyone down. So I won't. Suffice it to say that Java is only a nice language if you like your language to be DAMN LIMITING! (sorry Linus!) ;)


By Esben Mose Hansen at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Let's see what the JDK API documentation has to say about Object.equals():

"It is symmetric: for any non-null reference values x and y, x.equals(y) should return true if and only if y.equals(x) returns true."

So, the default implementation of the equals() method is symmetric. You are of course free to override it in your own classes by an assymetric one, but that's a design choice of yours, not a weakness of Java (there are a few classes in the JDK that override equals() by an assymetrical operation, but this is clearly documented in each case AFAIK).

What about the specific case of String ? Again, from the API Documentation for String.equals():

"Compares this string to the specified object. The result is true if and only if the argument is not null and is a String object that represents the same sequence of characters as this object."

Finally, there's the "==" operator. That one basically tests if two objects are identical. Note that this is quite different from two Strings having the same content !

Why is "==" in most cases have the same behavior as "equals()" for Strings ? Because of internal optimizations.

So there are no "Java weakness" in this case - there's simply a misunderstanding on what the operator and methods mean. Or in other words: before bashing Java (or any other language/platform), learn to use it first :)


By Kamina at Thu, 2007/05/10 - 5:00am

I have to say I like D's approach to this: the '==' operator for equality, the 'is' operator for identity.


By Jeff Parsons at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

I have to say I like Python's approach to this: the '==' operator for equality, the 'is' operator for identity. ;)


By panzi at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

...and as PyD (http://www.dsource.org/projects/pyd) gets better, the two make such great friends! :P


By Jeff Parsons at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

g++ actually supports typeof. To bad KDE insists on also supporting crappy proprietary compilers.


By Kevin Kofler at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

You see, the most important to support is standards and the C++ standard only has __typeof__.

Yours,
Kay


By Debian User at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

Uh, the C++ standard doesn't have __typeof__ either, it's a reserved identifier (double-underscore), the compiler can do anything it wants with that, g++ happens to actually do something useful with it.


By Kevin Kofler at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

I totally agree. GNU CC work on most (if not all) platforms, so there is no real need in supporting other compilers. Not only that it WORKS on all major platforms, it is also the default compiler on most of them (GNU/*, OS X, *BSD).


By Filip Brcic at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

Java works pretty well. It does not support some features and thats fine. A good language is a restrictive one.


By Karsten at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

>Java doesn't support smart pointers
Because it does not need it?

>making it hugely vulnerable to leaks
You are saying that C++ is less vulnerable to leaks than Java???

>lack of typeof operator
it has the 'instanceof'

>Java throws away part of the types during compilation
It is statically typed and you have all the type in run time, except for generics. You can even list all the types, methods and attributes of a object in runtime.

>Java doesn't support operator overloading
Many people think this is a feature :)


By bruno at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

> One of the reasons is that Java code must be true object oriented while this > appears optional with C++.

Just because you must put functions into classes in Java? Use one class, make all functions static, and there goes your object-orientation :)


By Frank at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

>Java code must be true object oriented

I'm not trying to be agressive, but you could not be more wrong. Object Oriented *Syntax* does not forces a TRUE object oriented model. Creating a good OO model takes much, much more than using the OO syntax some language offers.

It's like saying I know how to move the chess pieces therefore I'm a good chess player.


By bruno at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

With C++, there are cases where you have the choice of using STL and producing true OO code, or writing specific code which must be maintained (i.e. modified if the relevant parts of the program are changed). With Java, you do not have this choice and the equivalent of STL is built in.

So, I said that writing true OO code in C++ is optional but you must do it in Java.


By James Richard Tyrer at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

There is nothing object-oriented in STL, nor true nor otherwise.
Never ever try class MyVector : public std::vector{}; :)


By pilpilon at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

You are still so wrong. OO is about design, not about languages.


By bruno at Sun, 2007/05/06 - 5:00am

"The GCJ compiler can greatly improve the performance of Java by compiling it to native binary code."

I think JDK6's HotSpot outperforms native GCJ code in most cases, sometimes dramatically. I haven't heard any reports of it being faster. People use it because native binaries are more convenient in many cases, and that GCJ's runtime library, unlike Sun's JRE so far, has been freely distributable. If it's performance you want, you ironically have to go for bytecode :-)


By Haakon Nilsen at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

> I pretty much hate it
I love it!


By Anonymous at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

>I don't use Java, and I pretty much hate

There are other language which run on top of the JVM, which are able to call Java API so they should be able to use Qt Jambi..
I'm especially thinking about Scala which is a very nice language.


By renox at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Great. I hope I'll be able to check it out soon!

Many thanks to the good trolls!


By Arne Babenhause... at Thu, 2007/05/03 - 5:00am

It will be more apps for KDE and it speaks for itself...

Developpers have choise : C++ python or Java, all languages are opensource


By Gogast at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Though I will be avoiding Java and Python apps like hell. I have a PC that is slow enough, even without killing it with Java...


By zonk at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

cool. also I would prefer Swing for Java only applications, I think
this might be good for KDE.

now people can write KDE/QT apps in many cool languages including Java, Ruby and
Python. no need to use C++, except for performance or low level stuff.

that all should help people developing much more application in much less time.


By Markus at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

How do you port from Swing to QT?


By Karsten at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Right now there is only a limited migration path between swing and Qt Jambi. On Windows and X11 it is possible to run both the Swing event loop and the Qt Jambi event loop simultaneously and you can have toplevel widgets from both frameworks open and "alive" at the same time (I won't go into details on modallity or focus/activation issues, but...), so it is to some degree possible to port your Swing GUI to Qt Jambi one toplevel at a time and keep the underlying application compiling and running while doing so.

Ideally we would be able to host Swing widgets inside a Qt Jambi widget and vice versa, but we haven't begun the work on this yet. It is however something we intend to look into in the near future.


By Gunnar Sletta at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am


By Michael at Mon, 2007/05/07 - 5:00am

I am a Java developper, I am interested in Qt and QtJambi. But in my opinion QtJambi is poorly integrated with Java, it's only a "binding" between Java and C++ API. They should have taken advantage of Java specific things and make their API closer to what's done in other toolkits like SWT and Swing. Some examples:
- Event handling: "connect" method (not type safe) vs anonymous classes (observer/observable design pattern)
- I18N: "tr" vs resource bundles
- Useless APIs because already in Standard Java: SQL, Thread, Network, IO, XML...


By Garcia at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Maybe not so useless to take advantage of the standard plattform solutions.


By Karsten at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

What you are saying appears more to be a case of having some overlap, rather than poor integration. Whether this is an advantage or not depends on which angle you're coming from. Anyone already familiar with Qt will probably be very pleased with being able to use all his familiar "useless APIs", while someone already familiar with the standard Java API would have to relearn a lot.

Personally, I think the standard Java API is horribly over-engineered and cumbersome to use, so I'd pick the Qt API anytime.

OT: From a user's point of view what I'm still missing is Qt theme integration for Swing/SWT applications...


By Arend jr. at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Event-handling-wise, I've always found the Qt way to be far better than the extremely annoying observer design pattern used in Swing. It's really a matter of personal preference, but for me that's one of the things I least like about the Swing API: the fact that I need Listener classes for everything, and therefore end up creating classes that break up my cohesion in a very annoyed way. Let's not even get into what a nasty idea anonymous classes are for code reuse and such. It would be much better if they made connect type safe, though.

There are advantages to the useless APIs; namely, they're cohesive. Most of the Java APIs, in my opinion, are fairly bad, whereas most of the Qt APIs, again in my opinion, are very very nice, well thought-out, and polished. So then you have a choice.

As for tr vs resource bundles, they're a different approach. Qt Translator provides a very nice environment for doing translations based on the tr function, though.


By Anonymous at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Garcia, thank you for this feedback. I am a developer on Qt Jambi and we are very interested hearing about concerns such as this. I will try to address your concerns one by one with some clarifications as well as my personal opinions about this:

Qt Jambi is an alternative to Swing and SWT, and does not attempt to adapt the specific patterns chosen by these toolkits, but rather bring the API designed for Qt into the Java world. Personally, I find the Qt/Qt Jambi approach superior to approaches in either Swing or SWT. That being said, Qt Jambi does in fact "take advantage of Java specific things" to a higher degree than either of these toolkits, if we're discussing Java as in the language, and not the framework that is shipping with it. One example of this is proper Java enums rather of integer/String constants, which make autocompletion more useful and code more typesafe. A lot of work has in general gone into tailoring Qt Jambi to be more than "only a binding between Java and C++" but an actual first class Java citizen.

It is true, as you say, that the connect statement is not statically type safe, but
1. This approach is the same in Qt for C++, and has been proven to work well by almost fifteen years of Qt versions. Emit statements are, as in Qt, completely type safe at compile time.
2. The initialization code (where the calls to connect are typically located) is always in the code path, which means runtime exceptions in this code will be discovered on first program run. Thus, in practice, the mechanism has equivalent type safety to statically checked mechanisms.
3. Signals and slots handles a superset of what the listener pattern handles, and it is easily doable to implement listeners on top of signals and slots if you feel more comfortable to work with this familiar pattern.

Finally, there is a lot of functionality in Qt Jambi which is available in standard Java, as you say, but: the API design and structure of Qt Jambi components is quite unique and hopefully more intuitive, and I think you will find a lot of functionality in these parts of Qt Jambi which is not available in the standard class library, such as a resource engine which is integrated with the rest of the I/O subsystem, instead of just with selected parts of the I/O API.

So the bottom line, I guess, is that Qt Jambi is different from what is available already, and many people (myself included =)) find it more pleasant and intuitive to work with than the available APIs. In addition, there is a lot of functionality in Qt Jambi which is not available in current toolkits.

(Ps. Just a little clarification: Qt Jambi uses the standard Java thread API and does not attempt to replace this with anything.)


By Eskil Blomfeldt at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Thanks for this explanation


By stephan at Sat, 2007/05/05 - 5:00am

can i download the beta or do i have to work for a company?? because thats what i get asked for, when i want to download qt jambi.


By chris at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

You can download it.

I just said the truth:
Company: -

Download works fine, and they ask you, if you want the GPL versin, or the Preview-Licensed Version.


By Arne Babenhause... at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

I was not expecting this to happen so fast :)
Thank you Trolltech !!!!

One can use several language on top of the JVM (the same way you can use c#, vb#, j# or something else with .net)
I really hope it will be possible to use jruby, rhino (javascript) and groovy with Qt Jambi ! (I did not mention Jython since it is in a bad shape :s)

This would be an alternative to korandum4 and kjsembed :)

About the problems with gcj, I'm sure they will be solved quickly :). And I'd like to say that there is a great gcc SOC project to integrate OpenJDK's javac on gcj (made by a gnu classpath developper).

go java ! :)


By shamaz at Fri, 2007/05/04 - 5:00am

Pages