On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 05:12:45PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > My big beef with Java is that having *forced* you into an OO model
> > (something recognised both by Perl and C++ as being bad), its own
> > language primitives aren't in fact objects.
> It doesn't force you to be OO. I've written procedural code in Java, the
> only object instantiation I did was the program itself, and some strings
> and the numeric objects you need to do casting from one type to another.
This is rather what I mean. It's ugly. I don't agree that that's sensible
in any way at all. And the casting is *totally* broken.
int blah;
new Integer(blah);
ugh, but I said that. :-)
> > And the Write Once - Run Everywhere, is more like Write Once, Debug
> > Everywhere.
> To be fair, that is a feature of the broken JVMs rather than of the
> language. I don't tend to have many problems with it, but then my targets
Yes. It does depend on what you're doing.
> are Linux and Solaris. I do not give a flying fuck about whether stuff
> works on Mac or Windows, cos for stuff at work I'll always be targetting
> 'nix, and for my own stuff I'll be targetting *me*. And I am a Unix-only
> environment for anything that matters.
OK. So am I. But can I mention file descriptor passing at this point? ;-)
> It's quite a long time since I wrote any graphical Java, but I remember that
> being flaky on Linux, but am told that it has got a lot better now that Sun
> have released their own JVM for Linux and there's no need to rely on dodgy
> third-party hacks.
It's flaky on *everything* not just linux. But possibly. I don't use Linux
anymore.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/
