On 27/10/2010 22:04, retard wrote:
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.
"the widespead adoption of Java shows how the public at large cares very
little about the performance issues you mentioned"
WTF? The widespead adoption of Java means that _Java developers_ at
large don't care about those performance issues (mostly because they
work on stuff where they don't need to). But it's no statement about all
the pool of developers. Java is hugely popular, but not in a "it's
practically the only language people use" way. It's not like Windows on
the desktop.
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
