On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:14:04PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> Well, if a compiler can't figure it out that the types of the
> variables "Object" and "int" are different and it should make
> a conversion to assign one from the other, well, then the
> compiler writers are damn bad programmers!
The compiler can - and does - figure it out. It was a design decision
to make it barf instead of DWIM. Whilst that may make the language itself
shit (even C will do some type conversions for you), it's not a reflection
on the compiler writers. Except, of course, that they chose to implement
it instead of Doing The Right Thing themselves and finding different work.
> I agree completely. Java is a systems programming language,
> i.e. it's a very low level language. (You may disagree with
> me, but Java is just as low level as C, and, as far as UNIX
> is concerned, it's much less portable, IMO.)
You must have a different definition of 'low-level' to what I have.
> But "C++ just makes everything harder and worse, so
> I won't use it at all.", I actually agree, but not to
> the extents he goes about it. I actually didn't read
> it, but I guess he means he prefers Java to C++. This
> point I disagree.
I have to agree with jwz. I prefer Java to C++ - I prefer Java to C as
well. If I want to get down and dirty with the machine, I'll use an
assembler. I know it'll do what I tell it to do. This may have more to
do with me having no formal CS education but plenty of 8-bit haXX0ring
than anything else :-)
--
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
