"dsimcha" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > I didn't mean my comment in terms of the compilation system. I meant it > as a more > general statement of how these languages eschew convenience features. > Examples: > > The class centric paradigm is one example. > > The ridiculously fine grained standard library import system. If you > really want > to make your imports this fine-grained, you should use selective imports. > > Strictly explicit, nominative typing. > > Lack of higher order functions and closure just because you **can** > simulate these > with classes, even though this is horribly verbose. > > No RAII, scope statements, or anything similar just because you **can** > get by > with finally statements, even though this is again horribly verbose, > error-prone > and unreadable. > > The requirement that you only have one top-level, public class per file. > > Lack of default function arguments just because these **can** be simulated > with > overloading, even though this is ridiculously verbose. > > Lack of operator overloading just because you **can** use regular method > calls, > even though properly used operator overloading makes code much more > succinct and > readable.
Yea. If Java's design philosophy were a valid one, there would never have been any reason to move beyond Altair-style programming (ie, entering machine code (not asm) in binary, one byte at a time, via physical toggle switches). You *can* do anything you need like that (It's Turing-complete!).
