4 ms·
I think it's a syntax problem. ASCII doesn't have enough bracket characters to simply & clearly represent necessary language features. So it's harder for an int
by ErotemeObelus 7y ago
I think it's a syntax problem. ASCII doesn't have enough bracket characters to simply & clearly represent necessary language features. So it's harder for an intelligent human to sort and categorize these aspects.
Pre-generics Java is about the appropriate amount of language complexity for our current lingua franca
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago> Pre-generics Java is about the appropriate amount of language complexity for our current lingua franca I am not sure to whom you are referencing as being "our", so I can only say I disagree as there are many developers which are quite adept in languages having more complexity than "pre-generics Java." Perhaps you meant to reply to a different comment?
- pjmlp 7y agoIt surely isn't mine, otherwise I wouldn't be happily using Java 13 right now. Also even Google does have more stuff going on Java, C++, Dart, Kotlin and TypeScript than Go, which has more uptake outside Googleplex.
- jjoonathan 7y agoSpeak for yourself.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoJava is tolerably mediocre now but vintage 1996 Java was awful (and slow). I enjoy Scala, but even I can see why it's more than most of the industry is ready for. If there's a sweet spot, Kotlin seems close to it.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y agoI will gladly trade a little bit more language complexity if it means the complexity of the code that I write using that language is simpler.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoThis. When a platform refuses to solve a problem, that problem doesn't go away. The users are forced to roll their own solutions, none of which have the same test coverage and optimization opportunities.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoGenerics don't make Java that much more complex for your workaday Java coding.
- coldtea 7y agoErr, we had 10x times the features of "Pre-generics Java" even in 1970s Lisp and Smalltalk...