Re: The Revenge of the Geeks
From: Arne Vajhøj <arne_at_vajhoej.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:17:41 -0500
Message-ID: <51008bba$0$294$14726298_at_news.sunsite.dk>
On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it
>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise
>>>> edition"
>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on
>>>> streamlining the language itself.
>>>
>>> much agreed...
>>>
>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my
>>> bigger complaints about Java at present.
>>>
>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language
>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks.
>>
>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so
>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've
>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better
>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the
>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation
>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM
>> options now.
>>
>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core
>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java
>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's
>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE
>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency.
>
> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make
> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against,
> say, C++ or C#.
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:17:41 -0500
Message-ID: <51008bba$0$294$14726298_at_news.sunsite.dk>
On 1/23/2013 5:35 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 3:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> Yes, it is a shame that Oracle runs Java but Sun wasn't so great at it
>>>> either. Both pushed for high cost, high complexity "enterprise
>>>> edition"
>>>> libraries that come and go like fashion but dragged their feet on
>>>> streamlining the language itself.
>>>
>>> much agreed...
>>>
>>> the lack of "streamlining" of the core language is admittedly one of my
>>> bigger complaints about Java at present.
>>>
>>> this is along with what few new features are added to the core language
>>> (and to the JVM) are IMO far too often via ugly hacks.
>>
>> I'm not too worried about Java the language being close to stagnant, so
>> long as library development is up to par. Because if the solution I've
>> selected includes the JVM, then often Scala or Clojure are better
>> choices for high-productivity coding. Myself I don't care if Java the
>> language ever gets updated again - it's not important. The innovation
>> shifted away from Java the language years ago; there are better JVM
>> options now.
>>
>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the core
>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java
>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What's
>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE
>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency.
>
> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make
> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against,
> say, C++ or C#.
I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good at.
C# is a pretty good language.
>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of
>> what other people have written: libraries.
>>
>
> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language
> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but
> libraries none-the-less...
Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space.
Arne Received on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 02:17:41 CET