3 ms·
Paul's essay sounds like a case against commercial OOP-"languages for the masses" like Java/C# more than it's against OOP. Ruby, JavaScript and Python are perfe
by tx 19y ago
Paul's essay sounds like a case against commercial OOP-"languages for the masses" like Java/C# more than it's against OOP. Ruby, JavaScript and Python are perfect examples of powerful languages he seems to have no issues with.
I can't stand Java for the very same reason: it was created with a very specific commercial purpose in mind: to have enterprise software projects done cheaply. This implies that language should be simple enough (inexpensive training, armies of dispensable coders) and restrictive enough (cheap QA) to cheaply build systems that transfer data from one database to another. Sun, do not forget, is a hardware company. And what many hardware companies want, is to turn software into irrelevant commodity.
- mynameishere 19y ago_to have enterprise software projects done cheaply_ It was created to control embedded processors.
- mojuba 19y agoI'd say, the Java language standard is maintained by software bosses for software bosses, not for developers.
- Tichy 19y agoSo you hate Java because it is easy to use and stable? I fail to see the negatives in ease of use and cheap QA?
- tx 19y agoI don't have Java. I also don't have pliers, hammers and I am totally fine with screwdrivers and nails. :-) I don't use Java because it is too limiting, resulting in inferior/average performance (R&D team's performance, not code's).
- Shorel 19y agoSomebody else here. I do hate Java because it's unnecesarily complex. That is, I hate J2EE and all the f@#$%@#%g stuff I must do to simply pass a variable from one form to another. It's like having chains hanging from my body and trying to run. I hate that language and the stuff Java-only-heads do with it. I do, however, love the JVM.