Everybody is always aging, nothing to read into.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:51 PM, Scott Cotton wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:25:04 UTC+1, kortschak wrote:
>> Prior to about a couple of months ago, it was very rare to see anything
>> here about exciting addi
On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:25:04 UTC+1, kortschak wrote:
>
> Prior to about a couple of months ago, it was very rare to see anything
> here about exciting additions to the language from aging gophers. I
> think it's probably fair to say that many of us were quite happy with
> that situation
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 09:31:30 -0500, you wrote:
>To clarify, think of the performance improvements in the GC in Go from 1.1 to
>1.11. Amazing. But you only get these via recompiling which is a barrier. Many
>java installations frequently get performance improvements with no code
>changes or reco
Prior to about a couple of months ago, it was very rare to see anything
here about exciting additions to the language from aging gophers. I
think it's probably fair to say that many of us were quite happy with
that situation.
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 07:31 -0500, Robert Engels wrote:
> Next thing Gop
It’s in its early stages but if I understand my conversations with Ian
correctly, he says this is already available for the stdlib. I agree that
dynamically linking to the runtime is more difficult but given some
restrictions it might work.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 1:01 PM, S
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 15:31:54 UTC+1, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> To clarify, think of the performance improvements in the GC in Go from 1.1
> to 1.11. Amazing. But you only get these via recompiling which is a
> barrier. Many java installations frequently get performance improvements
> with
I prefer Go's compiled version over JIT of Java/.Net. I've faced the same
problem with Microsoft's 'dot net.' I asked this with Java and .Net but
they didn't listen then, and now Microsoft is adopting same with '.Net
Core' after Go.
Anyhow when Go came, finally there was another language that
To ground this last comment, every Java execution is a recompile in the
sense that the JVM holds all the magic and applys it to a Java “binary”
before and/or during execution.
The “write once run anywhere slogan” is at best a statement of “you code
once and we’ll localize and concreteize for you a
To clarify, think of the performance improvements in the GC in Go from 1.1 to
1.11. Amazing. But you only get these via recompiling which is a barrier. Many
java installations frequently get performance improvements with no code changes
or recompilation. This is why I’ve been investigating packa
Cool. Not sure why the JVM is not applicable to the discussion as it normally
ensures binary compatibility as languages evolve.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 14:33:32 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> What exactly are you referring
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 14:33:32 -0500, you wrote:
>What exactly are you referring to? I wasn’t aware of Android no longer being
>Java.
At Google I/O 2017 the Android team announced that Kotlin would be
supported as a first class language along with Java, including full
support in Android Studio.
W
I never made any claims about anyone else. I only presented my opinion that
backwards compatibility is a requirement for success.
WORA was not a huge factor in Java’s initial success IMO. There was only a
single dominant OS and all others combined made up a tiny fraction of the
market. Linux w
There are fallacies in your arguments.
First, you argue that Java is successful because it is backward compatible
all the way back to version 1.0, both in source and binary compatibility.
Therefore, if Go is to be just as successful, Go must do the same.
Second, you assume that people who disa
I think arguing that marketing was the cause of the proliferation is not
accurate. Marketing helps push technology, see big mega company, but in the
embedded space since the consumer does not “know what’s in there” it matters
far less. Java proliferated substantially on technical merits. Writing
You need to remember that Sun spent a lot of money into Java marketing.
They aggressively pushed Java into every device, from servers to
refrigerators and toasters. No company to date has ever done what Sun did
with Java. So it is wrong to conclude Java is popular due to its technical
merits al
As others pointed out, this was not true when ‘enums’ were added, but still the
Java compiler has always supported compiling using old version constructs. In
the case of enums it was binary compatible.
I think Ian’s proposal on the comment build flag to specify the language
version is a good on
"To this day, you can take a “binary” written for Java 1.0 and it will run
under the latest JRE. You can compile Java 1.0 source code with the latest
compiler. This is an amazing accomplishment that can’t be understated."
I've concern about this. This kind of guarantee might prevent needed
chang
I think you might be confusing my remarks with someone else. I am against
generics in Go.
Also, the Java + Android was in reference to installed applications.
Since very few desktop applications are developed today, you typically need to
look at back end. Java still dominates here. You could
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 11:32:10 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the most
> successful language/platform ever. NO debate.
>
Er, I can argue that VisualBasic + Windows is the most successfull but I
have no dog in that hun
What exactly are you referring to? I wasn’t aware of Android no longer being
Java. But also when I say java am referring to the JVM technology as well, so
add in all of the JVM languages and it’s even more lopsided.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 22:31:46 -0500, you wrote:
>First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the most
>successful language/platform ever. NO debate.
Which explains why, as soon as Google gave them the choice, developers
began the stampede away from Java to Kotlin.
Java may b
That is a different argument entirely.
That you have a team of competent Go developers that are productive in a few
weeks is a point against generics in Go at all (which is where I am now).
And that was my original point, is that outside of type-safe containers, MOST
generic code is not needed,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:32 PM robert engels wrote:
>
> OK, you got me, I’m sucked in - it was a nice balance of yes, BUT no.
>
> First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the most
> successful language/platform ever. NO debate.
>
> Arguing against Java’s write-once, run a
Quoting robert engels (2018-10-26 23:31:46)
>OK, you got me, I'm sucked in - it was a nice balance of yes, BUT no.
>
>First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the
>most successful language/platform ever. NO debate.
>Arguing against Java's write-once, run anyw
OK, you got me, I’m sucked in - it was a nice balance of yes, BUT no.
First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the most
successful language/platform ever. NO debate.
Arguing against Java’s write-once, run anywhere implementation is a bad
position to take. Yes, if you wri
Quoting Pat Farrell (2018-10-26 21:30:47)
>This leads to my second issue with the OP's ideas. I strongly believe
>that Java has been damaged by its attempt to deliver backward
>compatability. While others have brought up the potential issues with
>keywords, a much more telling disa
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 11:59:34 AM UTC-4, robert engels wrote:
>
> When Java came along there was a heavy sigh of relief by ISVs that
> understood write-once, and it will continue to work even as mega company
> released new OS versions and APIs - the burden was on the JDK/JRE
> impl
First, backward compatibility isn't free. The reason why you can still
compile your "version 1.0" source is because someone gives some thoughts
about it and puts some extra efforts to make it happen. Backward
compatibility requires maintenance and adds constraints to future
development. The mor
I didn't know that Ian had written this proposal so thanks for linking to
it.
Although I haven't had time to read it in detail, I certainly agree with
the tenor of what he's saying.
I know more about C# than Java and the language team there have always been
paranoid about not breaking compatib
29 matches
Mail list logo
