On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:55 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com <
phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at
> least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's
> very very powerful
You mean, like a SCAlable LAnguage?
>
I'm not aware of any better books than TAPL for covering what it
covers. But it's a pretty deep dive into type systems, not something
I would recommend for somebody who just wants to get his feet wet in
building languages. I haven't read EoPL, but since I'm quite fond of
Scheme I don't think I w
BTW, I think I went OT. Sorry before I am scolded.
On Jan 9, 4:55 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at
> least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's
> very very powerful
>
> I personally like writing
great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at
least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's
very very powerful
I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead
of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies
toge
Phil,
Sun and the JCP aren't directly interested in new ideas to change the
Java language. Fundamentally they already know all the ideas. It can
be worthwhile writing them up semi-formally (if you look at my specs
they are not monster) and changing the compiler to match. See the
Kijaro project if
Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these
debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the
Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of
Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of
both, no doubt the Java co
Adam,
Glad you found the code in WidgetFX for embedding Flash. It was quite
tricky to get everything working (I have a whole Javascript to Java
bridge for grabbing events like dragging and relaying them to the dock
code).
I tried to send a message earlier (twice actually), but think it may
h
When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in
features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a
casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming.
On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote:
>
> > I second this - keepin
On 7 Jan, 20:54, "Todd Costella" wrote:
> Crested Butte is a great little town and I understand why Bruce lives there
> year round.
>
Hi
See intermixed
> There are a couple of options for accommodation at the Roundup. There are a
> number of small hotel/inns. I know a number of previous at
On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote:
> I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0,
> 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job!
And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and
frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy
and innova
I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0,
3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job!
Most corporates are a version or two behind anyway. We have people in
our organisation who are having to be dragged from Java 1.4 to 1.5 and
1.6.
On Jan 8, 9:12 am, "Adam G." wrote:
> Maybe C
11 matches
Mail list logo
