6 ms·

Did you really take the post that personally?

axod 17y ago
I'm just bored of the endless fashion strutting that goes on recently in programming. I think it's irrelevant and tiring. If a language solved a problem 5 years ago, it'll solve the same problem today. It won't die unless something else is found that solves the problem in a better way.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Yeah, why bother keeping up with advances in the field? Back in my day, sonny, we used our Java 1.4, and that's the way we likes it. Any new ideas should be immediately rejected as "fashion strutting", especially new ideas that have been successfully implemented in other languages for decades.
  - axod 17y ago
    Go on then... as I asked in another thread and you didn't reply, list out a few advances in the field of programming in the last 5 years. Should we make CPU makers update their machine code as well every year or so to integrate all these programming discoveries?
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Let's start with Java's object system, and add state and implementation to interfaces. This way you can write something like: role Eq { requires 'equal_to'; method not_equal_to($a: $b) { return !$a->equal_to($b) } } The technique of composing classes from parts has recently been popularized by Smalltalk, Perl 6, Perl 5 (Moose), and Scala. (Scala's implementation is intentionally limited for some reason; look to Moose for the most reliable implementation that people actually use for Real Work.) If you want to do this in Java, you would have to create a class like: class NotEq { private Eq a; method not_equal_to(b) { !a.equals(b) } } class Foo implements Eq { private NotEq neq; Foo() { neq = new NotEq(this) } method equal_to(b) { ... } method not_equal_to(b) { neq.not_equal_to(b) } } This is a lot of code to write, which is why people just cut-n-paste instead. Also, Java is not merely 5 years behind, so it is worthwhile to look back farther to find ideas that Java could embrace. Java would do well to steal a sane object system like CLOS or Moose; it could really eliminate a lot of boilerplate. (One thing I think is annoying about Java is how much work the constructor has to do. In Lisp and Perl, I never write my own constructors, the object system does it for me. This means that things can be composed without the programmer having to know every detail, including which position each attribute initializer should be in.) Anyway, if you really think Java is the state of the art, you should look around a bit more. Yes, it's silly that people want to do their own type checking in "dynamic languages", but that's not why they use them -- it's all the other features that they want. The lack of static type checking is an unfortunate overreaction to C and C++.
      - axod 17y ago
        >> "Anyway, if you really think Java is the state of the art, you should look around a bit more." Thanks for proving my point. My point is, It doesn't have to be "State of the art" (fashionable). It has to work.
        jrockway 17y ago
        Why not use C then? Where do you draw the "it has to work" line?
        axod 17y ago
        You don't make sense again. I do use C. For classes of problems that are appropriate - kernel/low level stuff. For several things though, the lack of gc'd memory management, buffer overflows etc is a good reason not to use C. It sounds like you truly identify yourself as a "<language> programmer" rather than a "programmer" :/
        jrockway 17y ago
        I am more interested in writing good programs than "just getting something done". That means using tools with the appropriate level of expressiveness, of which Java and C are neither. Ask me which of Common Lisp, Haskell, and Perl I prefer, then call me a "<language> programmer". Remember, in the other threads, I am advocating combinations of features that do not currently exist in any programming language. I may be a "<language> programmer", I guess, but that <language> does not actually exist. Meta... (You are the one who thinks that every feature that Java has is essential for programming, and every feature it's missing is <some cynical weasel-words here>. That is indicative of seeing the world through Java-colored glasses.)
        axod 17y ago
        FWIW, I've written far more non Java code than I've written Java code, so I wouldn't say I have "Java-colored glasses") ;) I've also never said that Java is better than <insert other language here> without qualifying what it is better for.
- volida 17y ago
  Although I will agree with you in general about Java, I have to say that problems/challenges change, therefore you need new specific languages or automation tools for the job. In my point of view Java is just the tool to create new domain specific languages that solve these new problems. But, general languages that just make just a bit shorter or less verbose (as everyone who likes to dismiss Java uses quite often), to create a class won't do it for me to change language/platform.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    What tools does Java have for creating domain specific languages?
    - axod 17y ago
      domain specific languages == libraries. You make some libraries, functions that do shit. Then call them. That way other people can still read the code, and help. It's like GOSUB but better!
    - pohl 17y ago
      I'll pretend you're asking in earnest: Depending on the need, you have a bevy of parser-generators to choose from. My favorite is SableCC. Or, if you want something lightweight where you effectively have a DSL without creating an actual language, look towards static imports + fluent interfaces + builder pattern: http://blog.centuryminds.com/2007/10/java-static-imports-fluent-interfaces-builder-pattern-dsl/ http://blog.centuryminds.com/2007/10/java-static-imports-flu...
- scott_s 17y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the author of the post made the same point - languages don't die unless they are completely replaced. The author thinks that Java may live on for decades. He has taken the unfortunate, but popular, definition of a dead programming language: one which has stopped evolving. Of course, such a language is no more dead than sharks.

axod 17y ago

I'm just bored of the endless fashion strutting that goes on recently in programming. I think it's irrelevant and tiring. If a language solved a problem 5 years ago, it'll solve the same problem today. It won't die unless something else is found that solves the problem in a better way.

jrockway 17y ago
Yeah, why bother keeping up with advances in the field? Back in my day, sonny, we used our Java 1.4, and that's the way we likes it. Any new ideas should be immediately rejected as "fashion strutting", especially new ideas that have been successfully implemented in other languages for decades.
- axod 17y ago
  Go on then... as I asked in another thread and you didn't reply, list out a few advances in the field of programming in the last 5 years. Should we make CPU makers update their machine code as well every year or so to integrate all these programming discoveries?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Let's start with Java's object system, and add state and implementation to interfaces. This way you can write something like: role Eq { requires 'equal_to'; method not_equal_to($a: $b) { return !$a->equal_to($b) } } The technique of composing classes from parts has recently been popularized by Smalltalk, Perl 6, Perl 5 (Moose), and Scala. (Scala's implementation is intentionally limited for some reason; look to Moose for the most reliable implementation that people actually use for Real Work.) If you want to do this in Java, you would have to create a class like: class NotEq { private Eq a; method not_equal_to(b) { !a.equals(b) } } class Foo implements Eq { private NotEq neq; Foo() { neq = new NotEq(this) } method equal_to(b) { ... } method not_equal_to(b) { neq.not_equal_to(b) } } This is a lot of code to write, which is why people just cut-n-paste instead. Also, Java is not merely 5 years behind, so it is worthwhile to look back farther to find ideas that Java could embrace. Java would do well to steal a sane object system like CLOS or Moose; it could really eliminate a lot of boilerplate. (One thing I think is annoying about Java is how much work the constructor has to do. In Lisp and Perl, I never write my own constructors, the object system does it for me. This means that things can be composed without the programmer having to know every detail, including which position each attribute initializer should be in.) Anyway, if you really think Java is the state of the art, you should look around a bit more. Yes, it's silly that people want to do their own type checking in "dynamic languages", but that's not why they use them -- it's all the other features that they want. The lack of static type checking is an unfortunate overreaction to C and C++.
    - axod 17y ago
      >> "Anyway, if you really think Java is the state of the art, you should look around a bit more." Thanks for proving my point. My point is, It doesn't have to be "State of the art" (fashionable). It has to work.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Why not use C then? Where do you draw the "it has to work" line?
        axod 17y ago
        You don't make sense again. I do use C. For classes of problems that are appropriate - kernel/low level stuff. For several things though, the lack of gc'd memory management, buffer overflows etc is a good reason not to use C. It sounds like you truly identify yourself as a "<language> programmer" rather than a "programmer" :/
        jrockway 17y ago
        I am more interested in writing good programs than "just getting something done". That means using tools with the appropriate level of expressiveness, of which Java and C are neither. Ask me which of Common Lisp, Haskell, and Perl I prefer, then call me a "<language> programmer". Remember, in the other threads, I am advocating combinations of features that do not currently exist in any programming language. I may be a "<language> programmer", I guess, but that <language> does not actually exist. Meta... (You are the one who thinks that every feature that Java has is essential for programming, and every feature it's missing is <some cynical weasel-words here>. That is indicative of seeing the world through Java-colored glasses.)
        axod 17y ago
        FWIW, I've written far more non Java code than I've written Java code, so I wouldn't say I have "Java-colored glasses") ;) I've also never said that Java is better than <insert other language here> without qualifying what it is better for.
volida 17y ago
Although I will agree with you in general about Java, I have to say that problems/challenges change, therefore you need new specific languages or automation tools for the job. In my point of view Java is just the tool to create new domain specific languages that solve these new problems. But, general languages that just make just a bit shorter or less verbose (as everyone who likes to dismiss Java uses quite often), to create a class won't do it for me to change language/platform.
- jrockway 17y ago
  What tools does Java have for creating domain specific languages?
  - axod 17y ago
    domain specific languages == libraries. You make some libraries, functions that do shit. Then call them. That way other people can still read the code, and help. It's like GOSUB but better!
  - pohl 17y ago
    I'll pretend you're asking in earnest: Depending on the need, you have a bevy of parser-generators to choose from. My favorite is SableCC. Or, if you want something lightweight where you effectively have a DSL without creating an actual language, look towards static imports + fluent interfaces + builder pattern: http://blog.centuryminds.com/2007/10/java-static-imports-fluent-interfaces-builder-pattern-dsl/ http://blog.centuryminds.com/2007/10/java-static-imports-flu...
scott_s 17y ago
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the author of the post made the same point - languages don't die unless they are completely replaced. The author thinks that Java may live on for decades. He has taken the unfortunate, but popular, definition of a dead programming language: one which has stopped evolving. Of course, such a language is no more dead than sharks.