3 ms·
Just wanted to note that maybe “traditional” isn’t the most accurate description. They are used not because of a tradition but rather due to mountains of legacy
by kosolam 3y ago
Just wanted to note that maybe “traditional” isn’t the most accurate description. They are used not because of a tradition but rather due to mountains of legacy code.
And, eventually everything boils down to specific requirements and tasks that need to be accomplished, and the question should be what is the best tool for the given job, given a set of circumstances and constraints…
- warrenm 3y agoMaybe you're right ... I'm using "traditional" in place of "legacy" or "classic" (I believe ) There are a lot of "modern" or "up-and-coming" languages out there (Hare, Python, Ruby, Swift...) And there are a slew of "old", "traditional", or "classic" languages out there, too :) (APL, FORTRAN, C/C++...)
- johnbellone 3y agoUnfortunately, the JVM ecosystem did not fix that problem. There are mountains and mountains of Java code from 25+ years ago that are in the same situation. If there was a way to reliability run code on top of the JVM it would be gold. There do exist several products that perform a line-by-line analysis and spit out a comparable Java module, but it is extremely procedural, and is very high touch from an engineering perspective.