Re: Defending the network model
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <bd7hen$q68ef$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de>
Carl Rosenberger wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>The network model raises the bar on suckiness.
>
>
> What's "suckiness"?
>
> I fully agree that the power of the Java language model appears
> to be inferior to other language models because it does not
> directly support:
> - multiple inheritance
> - bidirectional references (relations)
Carl, after so many troll fests with Bob, hadn't you have time to learn what a relation is ?
> - delegation
> - closures
Actually it does have closures.
> - operator overloading
> - ...extend the list with whatever you wish
>
> Nonetheless, the absence of features has led to:
> - common coding practices
A commonality of poor coding, unwarranted complexity. Shallow engineering like in EJB, and all in all the epitomy of bad engineering practices.
> - reduced education requirements
That's a good one. Let's all go to work for MacDonalds :)
> - a very fast just-in-time compiler
That more often than would be decent for a production language will give you a SIGSEGV on Unixes, and occasionally an infinite loop in the signal handling code that "handles" SIGSEGV, by generating yet another SIGSEGV (in case you don't know this typically comes SIGSEGV is sent to you by the OS typically when you dereference invalid pointers).
What a feat !
> - excellent memory garbage collection
> - the availability of cheap and very powerful libraries,
> that get the job done for you
And very crappy library that'll get you in trouble.
>
> Simplicity rules.
And Java is way too complex for what it does, which is to say, very little.
As a matter of fact soon, we'll have the 6th edition of ICFP programming contest. An open internet challenge with a well defined and extremely non-trivial problem to be solved in 3 days.
Never in the previous 5 years did Java entries have any chance. This speaks volumes to the quality of Java.
>
> Following Clinton's "It's the economy, dummy" slogan:
> It's the time-to-market, dummy!
>
>
It's the brainwashing dummy !
>
>>Application specific data models raise the suckiness bar even higher.
>
>
> And this equally gos for application specific data models.
>
> If you have one application that you need to persist,
> why not use it's model? It saves time and produces
> additional stability and allows better refactoring.
>
> The lifecycles for some applications are very very short.
> Scale them to the needs!
Yes, the challenge I've submitted to you, can be written in 5 minutes in SQL. After more than 3 days you've only come up with excuses.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
> --
> Carl Rosenberger
> db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com
>
>
Cheers,
Costin
Received on Mon Jun 23 2003 - 20:40:24 CEST