Re: The Revenge of the Geeks

From: Arved Sandstrom <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:31:45 -0400
Message-ID: <C_fMs.82141$qb3.50670_at_newsfe25.iad>

On 01/23/2013 09:13 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 4:25 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 02:21 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2013 11:33 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> 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.
> I am a bit skeptical about that as a general approach.
> If the situation were that Java programs were almost always correct
> but that what took time was writing all the boilerplate code, then
> switching to Scala would be an obvious choice.
> But I don't see that. I see a large portion of Java developers not
> mastering Java and switching them to Scala would be one big
> fucking disaster.

As a general approach I'd have to agree. OTOH for the unknown percentage of Java programmers who are actually competent, which is the group I had in mind, there are tasks that are best done in another JVM language. The interop for Clojure<=>Java and Scala<=>Java is pretty good.

For the incompetent group they shouldn't be programming at all.

>> 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.
>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of
>> what other people have written: libraries.
> I completely agree.
> Arne
Received on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 20:31:45 CET

Original text of this message