4 ms·

Nope. It means a completely different thing. Java: the elegant simplicity of C++ and the blazing speed of Smalltalk. – Jan Steinman Basically, they got it a

Nope. It means a completely different thing. Java: the elegant simplicity of C++ and the blazing speed of Smalltalk. – Jan Steinman Basically, they got it all wrong. Erlang got it right.

pjmlp 11y ago
At least it got the Smalltalk JIT. :)
- ddp 11y ago
  Actually I think it got Self's JIT, at least that the story that the Self people tell. Squeak and Pharo's Morphic UI also came from Self. http://www.selflanguage.org http://www.selflanguage.org
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    I was simplifying. As Self roots are in Strongtalk, wich had as goal making a faster Smalltalk implementation. Now the closest we have to Self is JavaScript, damaged by DOM and its UI hacks to bend documents into applications.
olavk 11y ago
Java the language is much simpler than C++. I sincerely don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.
- coldtea 11y ago
  And it also has blazing speed -- and why its much faster that it initialy was, it was fast enough from the beginning too. The quote sounds funny, but it's actually BS.
  - dschiptsov 11y ago
    The sarcasm behind the quote is in that instead of focusing on what is really fundamental - message-passing between share-nothing entities (actors) and message-based polymorphism, they take an "inverse" view and focused on class hierarchies and all these irrelevant particulars from C++ which suits a "packer's" mentality. This is precisely why we have all these famous 120-character long methods, Factories of Factories and design patterns. (Norvig has a whole lecture about how good languages doesn't need design patterns). Of course, there were backed by big money marketing memes which helped to create Java cult - packer's fear of "evil" pointers, their strive for "safety", "guarantees", " standardization" without any understanding of underlying principles. Actually, Java ecosystem is the best compliment to the Programmers Stone essays, while Erlang is the same for design approach focused on what is fundamental - the very ideas emphasised in the Smalltalk design principles described above.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >The sarcasm behind the quote is in that instead of focusing on what is really fundamental - message-passing between share-nothing entities (actors) and message-based polymorphism, they take an "inverse" view and focused on class hierarchies and all these irrelevant particulars from C++ which suits a "packer's" mentality. What's "really important" for whom? Message passing between share-nothing entities might be good for Erlang but it wasn't really what Java was intented to be used for.
      - dschiptsov 11y ago
        You seem to ignore the discussion in the Smalltalk design overview about the natural modes of human communication which, arguably, should be at the core of a programing language.
    - olavk 11y ago
      What is 'a "packer's" mentality'? I don't think I've heard that expression before.
      - dschiptsov 11y ago

Nope. It means a completely different thing. Java: the elegant simplicity of C++ and the blazing speed of Smalltalk. – Jan Steinman Basically, they got it all wrong. Erlang got it right.

pjmlp 11y ago

At least it got the Smalltalk JIT. :)

ddp 11y ago
Actually I think it got Self's JIT, at least that the story that the Self people tell. Squeak and Pharo's Morphic UI also came from Self. http://www.selflanguage.org http://www.selflanguage.org
- pjmlp 11y ago
  I was simplifying. As Self roots are in Strongtalk, wich had as goal making a faster Smalltalk implementation. Now the closest we have to Self is JavaScript, damaged by DOM and its UI hacks to bend documents into applications.

olavk 11y ago

Java the language is much simpler than C++. I sincerely don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

coldtea 11y ago
And it also has blazing speed -- and why its much faster that it initialy was, it was fast enough from the beginning too. The quote sounds funny, but it's actually BS.
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  The sarcasm behind the quote is in that instead of focusing on what is really fundamental - message-passing between share-nothing entities (actors) and message-based polymorphism, they take an "inverse" view and focused on class hierarchies and all these irrelevant particulars from C++ which suits a "packer's" mentality. This is precisely why we have all these famous 120-character long methods, Factories of Factories and design patterns. (Norvig has a whole lecture about how good languages doesn't need design patterns). Of course, there were backed by big money marketing memes which helped to create Java cult - packer's fear of "evil" pointers, their strive for "safety", "guarantees", " standardization" without any understanding of underlying principles. Actually, Java ecosystem is the best compliment to the Programmers Stone essays, while Erlang is the same for design approach focused on what is fundamental - the very ideas emphasised in the Smalltalk design principles described above.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >The sarcasm behind the quote is in that instead of focusing on what is really fundamental - message-passing between share-nothing entities (actors) and message-based polymorphism, they take an "inverse" view and focused on class hierarchies and all these irrelevant particulars from C++ which suits a "packer's" mentality. What's "really important" for whom? Message passing between share-nothing entities might be good for Erlang but it wasn't really what Java was intented to be used for.
    - dschiptsov 11y ago
      You seem to ignore the discussion in the Smalltalk design overview about the natural modes of human communication which, arguably, should be at the core of a programing language.
  - olavk 11y ago
    What is 'a "packer's" mentality'? I don't think I've heard that expression before.
    - dschiptsov 11y ago