> Assembly language also lacks a ton of stuff. Which is why people rarely program in assembly language any more. > The point is, you build it if you want it.

> Assembly language also lacks a ton of stuff. Which is why people rarely program in assembly language any more. > The point is, you build it if you want it. That's what makes you a good programmer. Sure, but working around the issues I mentioned would require altering the syntax of the language, or preferably constructing a new language from scratch. But I wouldn't count that as programming in Java. > I haven't needed any of the items you state as shortcomings of Java People rarely do until they have experience of using them; it's the blub paradox. If you take a look at the code of a seasoned Lisp or Haskell programmer, then you'll note that a large proportion of their code includes syntax structures that cannot be replicated in Java. > But if I did, it really wouldn't be hard to add them in a preprocessing step. Fixing Java's type system as a preprocessing step is not going to be very easy, I'm afraid!