All very good points
On Sep 17, 12:47 pm, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with your analysis although I often think of this as a
> question. Why is it that it's ok to invent a totally new language but
> shaping an existing one according to state-of-the art is not? It seems
> like we are forced into making the hard choice between something
> radically new (Scala, JavaFX) or legacy (Java).
>
> The only difference is that the radically new has no backwards
> compatibility to worry about (yet). So how come we don't just evolve
> the existing stuff and let go of some compatibility with the benefit
> that you are offering the existing community a gradual and painless
> transition (but forego backwards compatibility). It's not clear to me
> why JavaFX was not made broader than it is, so it could effectively
> function as such as replacement.
>
> /Casper
>
> On 17 Sep., 12:23, hlovatt <howard.lov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You can see in this discussion group the tension between: "don't make
> > changes" (Bob) and "lets keep advancing Java" (Reinier). I am in
> > Reinier's camp, but think that both points of view can be satisfied
> > with a source statement. If there is no source statement then the file
> > compiles as it does now, but if the file has source "Java7"; at the
> > start then you can use the new features and most importantly a file
> > with source "Java7"; at the start does not have to be source
> > compatible with current Java (though the two need to co-exist on the
> > JVM - just like JavaFX and Java do today).
>
> > This way everyone gets what they want.
>
> > -- Howard.
>
> > On Sep 17, 2:52 am, Bob Lee <crazybob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> > > <reini...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > There were a few proposals that didn't make it that
> > > > nevertheless received some positive feedback and went through a bunch
> > > > of iterations (case in point: Neal's exception handling proposal!),
> > > > that were nevertheless not shortlisted.
>
> > > You keep pointing to Neal's proposal, but one example doesn't connote a
> > > trend. Let Neal champion his own proposal.
>
> > > While having a preliminary process might save some people some time, it's
> > > not something I'd spend time on. I doubt anyone else would either.
> > > Frankly,
> > > I hope the Java programming language *doesn't* change much more. I
> > > certainly
> > > don't want to do anything to encourage more change. In 5 years, Java will
> > > look a lot like C++, and we'll look back and say that we should have just
> > > stopped 5 years ago.
>
> > > Bob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
