4 ms·

I’d be really interested in hearing more about the ‘better Java’ point, if you have the time.

• dnautics 6y ago
  Not the OP, but i would have guessed that the (subjective) axes of "being better" are uncontroversial - by which I mean prepend "there are many who value that" in front of each: - a GC that can has relatively smart defaults without having to tweak a ton of parameters - don't have to ship a vm - concurrency baked in from the start - simpler language - doesn't try to square everything into the OO paradigm
  • pjmlp 6y ago
    > a GC that can has relatively smart defaults without having to tweak a ton of parameters Depends on the JVM being used > don't have to ship a vm You get to ship a runtime instead. Which Java also allows since around 2000, given how long commercial AOT compilers do exist for Java. > simpler language Java 1.0 was also Go simple, and just like Go does nowadays, full of code generation tools to work around that simplicity. > doesn't try to square everything into the OO paradigm Interfaces are part of OOP, introduced by Objective-C protocols.
    • dnautics 6y ago
      > Depends on the JVM being used Is picking a jvm not tweaking a parameter?
      • pjmlp 6y ago
        Just like picking Go, gccgo, TinyGo, TamaGo or whatever might come down the line.
        • dnautics 6y ago
          Nobody really does that.
          • pjmlp 6y ago
            They do, otherwise they wouldn't exist.