Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> Which I give a hearty "amen" to. It's interesting to read user >> forums and >> help sites where people seem to fear generics. > > I don't fear generics, but the Java version of them sucks rocks. Amen.... if you know even bits of the back story it'll make you cry. > I think that the answer here is probably that Java--the language needs > to stop evolving and give way to a better language on the JVM. The JVM has specific problems that make this a difficult and limiting option. The JVM was very much defined as a language specific VM. They're trying to extend it now to be a bit more flexible, but the result will inevitably be very much like what happened with Java Genrics, because the problem is very much the same.
The CLR is much better in this regard, but far from perfect. > Scala seems to do a much better job of implementing what Java should > have been while still integrating cleanly with Java and the JVM. Well... that's very much a matter of opinion. Mr. Gosling certainly wouldn't agree with that. Nor would a few people who have used it: http://creativekarma.com/ee.php/weblog/comments/my_verdict_on_the_scala_language/ http://unenterprise.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-not-scala.html Interestingly, some of the criticisms I've seen leveled at Scala mirror ones I've seen leveled at JDK 1.5. --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
