4 ms·
This isn't Java, this is C#. (In Java this would be more verbose).
by mdemare 17y ago
This isn't Java, this is C#. (In Java this would be more verbose).
- mechanical_fish 17y agoI'm aware of that. I chose to pick on Java because I assume, perhaps too generously, that the C# designers are constrained by the need to market their language to Java developers, such that when Java heads over a cliff the C# folks are obliged to follow, though perhaps with a more elegant series of aerial stunts on the way down. The risk is that I unfairly maligned Java, a language which I do not know well anymore, since I abandoned it about when it started to look like this. But according to you I'm being too generous to them as well. :)
- imbaczek 17y ago>the C# designers are constrained by the need to market their language to Java developers that was true only up to about C# 2.0; Java is way, way behind nowadays.
- coliveira 17y ago> C# designers are constrained by the need to market their language to Java developers No, because C# had generics before Java.
- mechanical_fish 17y agoOops. My ire is misplaced, then.
- weavejester 17y agoWell, the C# 2.0 specification was written in 2002, but the compiler was only released in 2005, a year after Sun released J2SE 5.0. So from a implementation perspective, Java had generics before C#.
- mdemare 17y agoI'm not sure if C#/Java's type-safety has morphed into a ridiculous version of itself. I suspect that there has been too little, rather than too much development in this regard. Type-inference and typedefs would go a long way of solving the excesses of type-safety, certainly in this case.
- jrockway 17y agoJava has no type safety, since every object can be null, and methods can't be called on null. This means your program can blow up at runtime due to type errors.