Fortunately, like 75% of what the posse talk about is more JVM than
Java related. e.g a quick news article about a new version of some
IDE, or an update to the swing libraries, or a new web framework -
well, only that last one is likely of significantly less interest to a
scala-only programmer,
I've always thought of Java as the C of the JVM because it's the
mother language. It's the language that most libs are written in and
it the set of APIs that all other languages have access to. In the
same way that all Unix languages can call down to the common C based
libraries. It is
The Java language is closely related to the Java VM. The language has
extra constraints for the programmer's safety (e.g. add checked
exceptions, hide 'goto'), but the basic imperative, pseudo-OO
computational model is shared. For example, compare the invocation
modes in JLS 15.12.3/4 with the
On Jul 26, 2:54 am, Michael Neale michael.ne...@gmail.com wrote:
I think in some cases (at least in mine) there is an aspect of giving
up on the evolution of java the language ever happening. Things seem
to take too long, or be talked about too much (and many people have
objections to any
On Jul 26, 12:07 pm, Frederic Simon frederic.si...@gmail.com wrote:
- C++ is an OO layer on top of C (that will disappear slowly as an historical
aberration)
C++ pretends to provide an object-oriented data model, C++
programmers pretend to respect it, and everyone pretends that the code
will
Just a point. From a look around the mainframe development team,
there is a strong probability of that the COBOL programmers will die
prior to the language.
On Jul 26, 11:10 am, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
I was NOT suggesting that the various other languages you mentioned
Die or be killed?
I'm just saying
On Jul 26, 7:48 pm, Steven Herod steven.he...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a point. From a look around the mainframe development team,
there is a strong probability of that the COBOL programmers will die
prior to the language.
On Jul 26, 11:10 am, Reinier
I think in some cases (at least in mine) there is an aspect of giving
up on the evolution of java the language ever happening. Things seem
to take too long, or be talked about too much (and many people have
objections to any change, possibly rightly so) that it all just seems
too hard, so the
I think Java is more like C, and Scala like C++:
- C is the base workhorse of low level modules (close to the metal - all the
metal there is)
- Java is the base workhorse of the JVM (close to the bytecode)
- C++ is an OO layer on top of C (that will disappear slowly as an
historical aberration)
-
And with the 'java is close to the bytecode' again.
No, it isn't. Java is one of the farthest removed languages from the
bytecode. The relationship Assembler-C is fundamentally NOT the same
as the relationship JVM Bytecode - Java!
Wanna throw a checked exception out of a method that doesn't
I was NOT suggesting that the various other languages you mentioned
aren't worth investigating. I was only suggesting that their mere
existence does not mean java should stop evolving. I was also
attempting to insinuate that Scala/Groovy/etc fanboys saying that java
should stop getting new
What, you missed the highly popular ScalaOne in San Francisco? Where
have you been man?
On Jul 24, 7:01 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
I think your scala hobbying is leaking through a bit too much, Dick.
Okay, scala might be an interesting take on a future java. In what
Actually it was called the Scala LiftOff http://www.scalaliftoff.com.
There comes a point where no matter how much momentum you try to gather on a
language, it has slowed progress to the point where breakthrough change
occurs elsewhere. I love java. It's provided me with a living. However I
13 matches
Mail list logo
