3 ms·

I don't understand or agree with your logic at all. Oracle shouldn't waste time on Java because it is already so far behind as to be hopeless? That notion seem

by sreque 14y ago

I don't understand or agree with your logic at all. Oracle shouldn't waste time on Java because it is already so far behind as to be hopeless? That notion seems silly at best, especially as 99% of code written on the JVM is still done in Java. Also, generics fiasco? Generics may not be perfect, but I haven't met a single person who isn't glad that they are in the language. Who has done generics better? C#? Because C#'s type system is baked so heavily into the run time, the CLR actually has a harder time supporting languages with more powerful type systems than does the JVM. See, for instance, this post: http://olabini.com/blog/2010/07/questioning-the-reality-of-generics/ http://olabini.com/blog/2010/07/questioning-the-reality-of-g.... Both Ola, a JRuby developer, and Martin Oderskey, the creatir of Scala, prefer the JVM's type erasure to the reified generics of the CLR.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
As a "language snob", I feel that Java is hopelessly behind among JVM languages. But I also think that C# is well-designed enough that it doesn't matter whether it's the only CLR language I'll ever use. I don't know if the grandparent poster feels the same, but your post actually confirms my opinion. Of course I have no realistic idea how Oracle would ever migrate millions of Java coders to a cleaner language. :(
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>As a "language snob", I feel that Java is hopelessly behind among JVM languages. Java is designed by its existence to be a better C++, nothing much. Nothing changes that base design goal. But this is a design goal for the late 80's and early 90's. The fate of most Java-only programmers, which are uncountable today is pitiable to say at the least. Its like Dijkstra said, one must avoid prolonged exposure to bad tools. Because they permanently damage your brain. Oracle will never do away with Java, its their bait to sell their products. Most Java programmers will go the COBOL programmers way- "Employable only at MegaCorps"
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    > "Employable only at MegaCorps" Usually it comes with a salary full with nice digits.
Dn_Ab 14y ago
It depends on what you want to do. It would make sense that Scala, a language that can naturally encode a type class like structure and jruby, a dynamic language wouldn't mind erasure. For jruby it is self evident why and for scala's case, reified generics make it really hard to do higher kinded stuff. Haskell is type erased too but it's not commonly noticed due to the nature of the structures commonly used and the strength of the type system. But in an OOP language where inheritance is used significantly, you really do need Reified generics as they make things much easier. I believe Java also made additional compromises to maintain backwards compatibility.
fauigerzigerk 14y ago
I agree with your first point. There's no reason not to make Java better. But generics have been a fiasco. No collections of primitive types? Come on, that is a major fiasco for code that needs to be memory efficient.
- eropple 14y ago
  Trove and Colt handle those cases fine.

by sreque 14y ago

gurkendoktor 14y ago

As a "language snob", I feel that Java is hopelessly behind among JVM languages. But I also think that C# is well-designed enough that it doesn't matter whether it's the only CLR language I'll ever use. I don't know if the grandparent poster feels the same, but your post actually confirms my opinion. Of course I have no realistic idea how Oracle would ever migrate millions of Java coders to a cleaner language. :(

kamaal 14y ago
>>As a "language snob", I feel that Java is hopelessly behind among JVM languages. Java is designed by its existence to be a better C++, nothing much. Nothing changes that base design goal. But this is a design goal for the late 80's and early 90's. The fate of most Java-only programmers, which are uncountable today is pitiable to say at the least. Its like Dijkstra said, one must avoid prolonged exposure to bad tools. Because they permanently damage your brain. Oracle will never do away with Java, its their bait to sell their products. Most Java programmers will go the COBOL programmers way- "Employable only at MegaCorps"
- pjmlp 14y ago
  > "Employable only at MegaCorps" Usually it comes with a salary full with nice digits.

Dn_Ab 14y ago

It depends on what you want to do. It would make sense that Scala, a language that can naturally encode a type class like structure and jruby, a dynamic language wouldn't mind erasure. For jruby it is self evident why and for scala's case, reified generics make it really hard to do higher kinded stuff. Haskell is type erased too but it's not commonly noticed due to the nature of the structures commonly used and the strength of the type system. But in an OOP language where inheritance is used significantly, you really do need Reified generics as they make things much easier. I believe Java also made additional compromises to maintain backwards compatibility.

fauigerzigerk 14y ago

I agree with your first point. There's no reason not to make Java better. But generics have been a fiasco. No collections of primitive types? Come on, that is a major fiasco for code that needs to be memory efficient.

eropple 14y ago
Trove and Colt handle those cases fine.