5 ms·
I don't see any future for it. Authors concentrated too much on "simplicity". It's the language which doesn't have important modern language features, like gen
by solomatov 13y ago
I don't see any future for it. Authors concentrated too much on "simplicity".
It's the language which doesn't have important modern language features, like generics, and I won't ever use it unless these feature are added which is highly unlikely.
Languages like Mozilla Rust seem to me to be a more adequate replacement for C++.
- mseepgood 13y agoParametric polymorphism is not a "modern" language feature, it has been known for many decades. When language designers opt against the inclusion of generics in the year 2007, then you can be sure that they don't do so because they are too stupid to see the benefits of "generics", but because they also consider the downsides. Language design is decision-making in hundreds of trade-off situations.
- solomatov 13y ago> When language designers opt against the inclusion of generics in the year 2007, then you can be sure that they don't do so because they are too stupid to see the benefits of "generics", but because they also consider the downsides. Authors of Java didn't include closures and generics despite the fact that they were aware of them. They thought that these features are too complicated for ordinary developers. Look what this lead to, we now have generics and closures, but they made the language much more complicated and hacky than it would be if they would have integrated into it from scratch.
- mseepgood 13y agoThe people who designed Java are not the same who "extended" it later on.