Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:52:29 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > retard wrote: >> Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:08:19 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: >> >>> retard wrote: >>>> This is why the basic data structure in functional languages, >>>> algebraic data types, suits better for this purpose. >>> I think you recently demonstrated otherwise, as proven by the >>> widespread use of Java :-) >> >> I don't understand your logic -- Widespread use of Java proves that >> algebraic data types aren't a better suited way for expressing >> compiler's data structures such as syntax trees? > > You told me that widespread use of Java proved that nothing more complex > than what Java provides is useful: > > "Java is mostly used for general purpose programming so your claims > about usefulness and the need for extreme performance look silly." > > I'd be surprised if you seriously meant that, as it implies that Java is > the pinnacle of computer language design, but I can't resist teasing you > about it. :-)
I only meant that the widespead adoption of Java shows how the public at large cares very little about the performance issues you mentioned. Java is one of the most widely used languages and it's also successful in many fields. Things could be better from programming language theory's point of view, but the business world is more interesting in profits and the large pool of Java coders has given better benefits than more expressive languages. I don't think that says anything against my notes about algebraic data types.
