Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:12:27 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: With the best will in the world, I'd never even consider writing e.g. a device driver in Scala. Nor code for an embedded device with tightly constrained resources. I would never consider using any language for a task completely outside it's zone of relevance. That goes without saying. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:47:13 PM UTC-5, Josh Berry wrote: Apologies, I was a definitely too absolute in my claim. I was more just going on admittedly anecdotal evidence that most truly cross platform applications that aren't a) ugly, or b) dog slow are not written in Java and related languages. I'm definitely open to counters. But, once you get that list made, compare it to the number of applications that are heavily used in many platforms and the language they used. From the Kernel, which is on near everything, to browsers. Mozilla is at least making a stab with a new language that will compete with C/C++. It isn't clear this will win, though. When you say Java apps are slow, ugly and not heavily used, you are talking about apps like web browsers, chat clients, shell terminals, and media player apps: Java isn't the best fit for that. At university, I used lots of Windows only apps like PSpice for simulating electric circuits, and CAD desktop apps, and various instrumentation desktop applications: they weren't cross platform, and the GUIs were extremely ugly, wonky, glitchy. Java would be a better fit if those tools were ever rewritten. I worked for a company that made CAE desktop application software. Their GUIs were either Tcl/Tk or based in Windows only C++ MFC and used some porting technology: Java would have been radically easier to develop, looked better, and ran faster for end users. IDEs are often the standard example of where Java GUI is an appropriate dev tool. They aren't unusually ugly and the slowness is a direct result of their functionality, not the GUI technology. Some guys I work with do graph data analysis, and use many tools including a visualization tool called GePhi that is written in Java: it's a very appropriate GUI technology. The GUI is nice, pleasant, and responsive, and we have people using it flawlessly on Mac/Linux/Windows. Also, and I apologize if this is basically goal post shifting, but when I refer to cross platform, I don't necessarily mean just linux/mac/windows. I mean something that can run on the raspberry pi, or aduino, or *any* phone/tablet/whatever. Obviously, not just any C program can be made to fit this bill. But, to my knowledge, no Java program can. (Of course, maybe Angry Birds is all it takes to prove me wrong. Or Scumm games, in general. :) ) Sure, lots of people want phones, Raspberry Pi, etc beyond workstation OS. People do have Java apps including JavaFX running on iPhone and Rasberry Pi, although it may not be the best option. People have Java games using libgdx running from mostly one source code base on iOS and Android and Win/Mac/Linux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions, for/monad comprehensions, focus on immutability, pervasive type inference, cleaned up generics, array syntax that is unified with generics (Array[Type] rather than Type[]), language level currying and partial functions, overridable var/val and ideal property system, singleton objects instead of static. And C/C++ is worse than Java: #define/#include, header files, __declspec, library dependency system is a wreck, ABI issues across binaries, hairy legacy issues that are far worse than Java, wildly varying implementations of the standard, super complex networking/threading/file apis that make the Java standard library a work of art. Did you ever use COM/ActiveX? Have you ever worked with international strings in C? It's a major pain, it's wildly non-standard between different compiler vendors, and makes every other language ridiculously elegant in comparison. Programmers often hate the tool they use for work, because they have to deal with lots of legacy code and annoying coworkers with conflicting styles. When they use another language/tool on the side, they can do everything exactly how they want, so the other tool seems better. If you had to deal with large amounts of typical legacy business C code, I expect you would appreciate Java a lot more. And if you used Idris for work with tons of legacy code and annoying coworkers, it would be better because Idris/Haskell are so strict about enforcing certain conventions, but it still wouldn't be ideal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, clay claytonw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:47:13 PM UTC-5, Josh Berry wrote: Apologies, I was a definitely too absolute in my claim. I was more just going on admittedly anecdotal evidence that most truly cross platform applications that aren't a) ugly, or b) dog slow are not written in Java and related languages. I'm definitely open to counters. But, once you get that list made, compare it to the number of applications that are heavily used in many platforms and the language they used. From the Kernel, which is on near everything, to browsers. Mozilla is at least making a stab with a new language that will compete with C/C++. It isn't clear this will win, though. When you say Java apps are slow, ugly and not heavily used, you are talking about apps like web browsers, chat clients, shell terminals, and media player apps: Java isn't the best fit for that. Isn't this just restating my point, in some respects? There are some niches where Java works really well. It probably *could* work better than it gets credit for cross platform development. Especially in a world of lots of resources. However, by and large, it just hasn't. Any of the cases that are pointed out are often perfect fits for the exception proves the rule. At university, I used lots of Windows only apps like PSpice for simulating electric circuits, and CAD desktop apps, and various instrumentation desktop applications: they weren't cross platform, and the GUIs were extremely ugly, wonky, glitchy. Java would be a better fit if those tools were ever rewritten. I worked for a company that made CAE desktop application software. Their GUIs were either Tcl/Tk or based in Windows only C++ MFC and used some porting technology: Java would have been radically easier to develop, looked better, and ran faster for end users. These are convenient assertions, but again, I would like evidence. Especially since I've heard nothing but good things for Tcl/Tk. IDEs are often the standard example of where Java GUI is an appropriate dev tool. They aren't unusually ugly and the slowness is a direct result of their functionality, not the GUI technology. IDEs are an interesting bag, though. Eclipse had to invent their own toolkit to come close to making it work. And, I have not heard anyone praise any of the main IDEs for looks in a long time. IDEA comes close, yet they are almost a definite exception to this rule. Just as Minecraft stands up as the definitive (and nearly only) java game worth talking about. (There is also the fact that it seems only java IDEs are written in java.) Some guys I work with do graph data analysis, and use many tools including a visualization tool called GePhi that is written in Java: it's a very appropriate GUI technology. The GUI is nice, pleasant, and responsive, and we have people using it flawlessly on Mac/Linux/Windows. I'll have to take a look. Sounds nice. Also, and I apologize if this is basically goal post shifting, but when I refer to cross platform, I don't necessarily mean just linux/mac/windows. I mean something that can run on the raspberry pi, or aduino, or *any* phone/tablet/whatever. Obviously, not just any C program can be made to fit this bill. But, to my knowledge, no Java program can. (Of course, maybe Angry Birds is all it takes to prove me wrong. Or Scumm games, in general. :) ) Sure, lots of people want phones, Raspberry Pi, etc beyond workstation OS. People do have Java apps including JavaFX running on iPhone and Rasberry Pi, although it may not be the best option. People have Java games using libgdx running from mostly one source code base on iOS and Android and Win/Mac/Linux I am still not seeing much to dissuade me of the believe that Java just isn't that good for this. Can it be done? I mean, obviously in a turing complete sense of the word, yes. Does it truly make things easier? I'm not convinced. Evidence seems to show it doesn't. Don't get me wrong. I still agree that it *should*. I'm just saying it has far from lived up to that promise. To the point that I don't even see it touted much anymore. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay claytonw...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions, for/monad comprehensions, focus on immutability, pervasive type inference, cleaned up generics, array syntax that is unified with generics (Array[Type] rather than Type[]), language level currying and partial functions, overridable var/val and ideal property system, singleton objects instead of static. And C/C++ is worse than Java: #define/#include, header files, __declspec, library dependency system is a wreck, ABI issues across binaries, hairy legacy issues that are far worse than Java, wildly varying implementations of the standard, super complex networking/threading/file apis that make the Java standard library a work of art. Did you ever use COM/ActiveX? Have you ever worked with international strings in C? It's a major pain, it's wildly non-standard between different compiler vendors, and makes every other language ridiculously elegant in comparison. Programmers often hate the tool they use for work, because they have to deal with lots of legacy code and annoying coworkers with conflicting styles. When they use another language/tool on the side, they can do everything exactly how they want, so the other tool seems better. If you had to deal with large amounts of typical legacy business C code, I expect you would appreciate Java a lot more. And if you used Idris for work with tons of legacy code and annoying coworkers, it would be better because Idris/Haskell are so strict about enforcing certain conventions, but it still wouldn't be ideal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:25:15 +0200, Josh Berry tae...@gmail.com wrote: IDEs are an interesting bag, though. Eclipse had to invent their own toolkit to come close to making it work. And, I have not heard anyone True, but this happened ages ago. In the meantime, native Java UIs are ok today. But weren't we talking about a *language*? -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. We make Java work. Everywhere. http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay clayt...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions, for/monad comprehensions, focus on immutability, pervasive type inference, cleaned up generics, array syntax that is unified with generics (Array[Type] rather than Type[]), language level currying and partial functions, overridable var/val and ideal property system, singleton objects instead of static. And C/C++ is worse than Java: #define/#include, header files, __declspec, library dependency system is a wreck, ABI issues across binaries, hairy legacy issues that are far worse than Java, wildly varying implementations of the standard, super complex networking/threading/file apis that make the Java standard library a work of art. Did you ever use COM/ActiveX? Have you ever worked with international strings in C? It's a major pain, it's wildly non-standard between different compiler vendors, and makes every other language ridiculously elegant in comparison. Programmers often hate the tool they use for work, because they have to deal with lots of legacy code and annoying coworkers with conflicting styles. When they use another language/tool on the side, they can do everything exactly how they want, so the other tool seems better. If you had to deal with large amounts of typical legacy business C code, I expect you would appreciate Java a lot more. And if you used Idris for work with tons of legacy code and annoying coworkers, it would be better because Idris/Haskell are so strict about enforcing certain conventions, but it still wouldn't be ideal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Holy moly. I was explaining (my interpretation of) Kevin's assertion that he'd go for C. I even started with I'm not saying I agree. I don't really have a strong opinion, but I'm not going to pre-judge a group who has developed in C for the reasons I gave. C++, sure, I'll pre-judge you if you're using that. :) On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM, clay claytonw...@gmail.com wrote: Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay clayt...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions, for/monad comprehensions, focus on immutability, pervasive type inference, cleaned up generics, array syntax that is unified with generics (Array[Type] rather than Type[]), language level currying and partial functions, overridable var/val and ideal property system, singleton objects instead of static. And C/C++ is worse than Java: #define/#include, header files, __declspec, library dependency system is a wreck, ABI issues across binaries, hairy legacy issues that are far worse than Java, wildly varying implementations of the standard, super complex networking/threading/file apis that make the Java standard library a work of art. Did you ever use COM/ActiveX? Have you ever worked with international strings in C? It's a major pain, it's wildly non-standard between different compiler vendors, and makes every other language ridiculously elegant in comparison. Programmers often hate the tool they use for work, because they have to deal with lots of legacy code and annoying coworkers with conflicting styles. When they use another language/tool on the side, they can do everything exactly how they want, so the other tool seems better. If you had to deal with large amounts of typical legacy business C code, I expect you would appreciate Java a lot more. And if you used Idris for work with tons of legacy code and annoying coworkers, it would be better because Idris/Haskell are so strict about enforcing certain conventions, but it still wouldn't be ideal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
C is essentially the recognized, practical high-level portable assembler language. It's the closest thing to assembler that allows production of portable source code that has been proven to work for developing a huge range of software (drivers, operating systems, embedded control, servers, desktop applications, etc...) for a huge range of hardware and operating systems. C is essentially never too big or too slow. Combined with its huge mindshare it seems almost permanently ensconced as the almost bare metal tool. Sure something will likely dethrone it someday -- but I'd not bet on that day being soon. On the other hand, is C truly a high enough language for /effective /development of some of the world's biggest applications? Not really. Is it really the most effective tool for developing smaller applications that don't really have to be to the metal? Arguably not. As such C will frequently be passed over for many of these sorts of projects (at the very least by C++, but often by Java, C#, and a long list of languages). -- Jess Holle On 6/11/2014 2:28 PM, clay wrote: Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay clayt...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions, for/monad comprehensions, focus on immutability, pervasive type inference, cleaned up generics, array syntax that is unified with generics (Array[Type] rather than Type[]), language level currying and partial functions, overridable var/val and ideal property system, singleton objects instead of static. And C/C++ is worse than Java: #define/#include, header files, __declspec, library dependency system is a wreck, ABI issues across binaries, hairy legacy issues that are far worse than Java, wildly varying implementations of the standard, super complex networking/threading/file apis that make the Java standard library a work of art. Did you ever use COM/ActiveX? Have you ever worked with international strings in C? It's a major pain, it's wildly non-standard between different compiler vendors, and makes every other language ridiculously elegant in
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Yes. Exactly what Jess said! With the best will in the world, I'd never even consider writing e.g. a device driver in Scala. Nor code for an embedded device with tightly constrained resources. C is small, well-defined, and can produce some incredibly tiny executables. It focuses tightly on what it does well. I also like Go for systems work, and Rust - or at least I would if it settled down a bit more. Swift is the opposite. It's very much an applications language. We played with it at the Posse roundup today :) In many ways, it really does look too much like Scala to be mere coincidence. We also discovered that: - The Xcode beta is a *big* download, took us almost an hour - You must be a paid-up Apple dev to get it - The lack of flatMap on arrays and Optional is a gross oversight - We couldn't implement flatMap ourselves either, as it seems you can extend an Array, but we couldn't find a way to get at the generic type information - There's no way to catch exceptions Overall, it felt (to me) very much like a work-in-progress. On 11 June 2014 21:29, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote: C is essentially the recognized, practical high-level portable assembler language. It's the closest thing to assembler that allows production of portable source code that has been proven to work for developing a huge range of software (drivers, operating systems, embedded control, servers, desktop applications, etc...) for a huge range of hardware and operating systems. C is essentially never too big or too slow. Combined with its huge mindshare it seems almost permanently ensconced as the almost bare metal tool. Sure something will likely dethrone it someday -- but I'd not bet on that day being soon. On the other hand, is C truly a high enough language for *effective *development of some of the world's biggest applications? Not really. Is it really the most effective tool for developing smaller applications that don't really have to be to the metal? Arguably not. As such C will frequently be passed over for many of these sorts of projects (at the very least by C++, but often by Java, C#, and a long list of languages). -- Jess Holle On 6/11/2014 2:28 PM, clay wrote: Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay clayt...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler. and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :) I completely understand why you prefer Idris/Haskell over Scala and Scala over Java. But why on Earth would you also prefer C? That seems to go the opposite direction and be a big step down from Java? All the things Scala fixes from Java are broken in C as well: if expressions,
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
I was looking into xcode 6 last night, the bit about being a paid-up developer is right, but apparently only while it's in beta. So Kevin, are you the English guy with the strong regional accent on the roundups? I can't remember which accent, Newcastle or Cornwall or something. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Exactly what Jess said! With the best will in the world, I'd never even consider writing e.g. a device driver in Scala. Nor code for an embedded device with tightly constrained resources. C is small, well-defined, and can produce some incredibly tiny executables. It focuses tightly on what it does well. I also like Go for systems work, and Rust - or at least I would if it settled down a bit more. Swift is the opposite. It's very much an applications language. We played with it at the Posse roundup today :) In many ways, it really does look too much like Scala to be mere coincidence. We also discovered that: - The Xcode beta is a *big* download, took us almost an hour - You must be a paid-up Apple dev to get it - The lack of flatMap on arrays and Optional is a gross oversight - We couldn't implement flatMap ourselves either, as it seems you can extend an Array, but we couldn't find a way to get at the generic type information - There's no way to catch exceptions Overall, it felt (to me) very much like a work-in-progress. On 11 June 2014 21:29, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote: C is essentially the recognized, practical high-level portable assembler language. It's the closest thing to assembler that allows production of portable source code that has been proven to work for developing a huge range of software (drivers, operating systems, embedded control, servers, desktop applications, etc...) for a huge range of hardware and operating systems. C is essentially never too big or too slow. Combined with its huge mindshare it seems almost permanently ensconced as the almost bare metal tool. Sure something will likely dethrone it someday -- but I'd not bet on that day being soon. On the other hand, is C truly a high enough language for *effective *development of some of the world's biggest applications? Not really. Is it really the most effective tool for developing smaller applications that don't really have to be to the metal? Arguably not. As such C will frequently be passed over for many of these sorts of projects (at the very least by C++, but often by Java, C#, and a long list of languages). -- Jess Holle On 6/11/2014 2:28 PM, clay wrote: Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and Forth are (i.e., hard to reduce further without losing real capability). On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, clay clayt...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:31:34 PM UTC-5, KWright wrote: Nope! C or Idris, I'll also accept
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
The English guy you're probably thinking of is Peter Pilgrim. This is my (and London's) first roundup. It'll appear on the podcast sooner or later. We have video too! On 11 Jun 2014 23:37, Ricky Clarkson ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote: I was looking into xcode 6 last night, the bit about being a paid-up developer is right, but apparently only while it's in beta. So Kevin, are you the English guy with the strong regional accent on the roundups? I can't remember which accent, Newcastle or Cornwall or something. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Exactly what Jess said! With the best will in the world, I'd never even consider writing e.g. a device driver in Scala. Nor code for an embedded device with tightly constrained resources. C is small, well-defined, and can produce some incredibly tiny executables. It focuses tightly on what it does well. I also like Go for systems work, and Rust - or at least I would if it settled down a bit more. Swift is the opposite. It's very much an applications language. We played with it at the Posse roundup today :) In many ways, it really does look too much like Scala to be mere coincidence. We also discovered that: - The Xcode beta is a *big* download, took us almost an hour - You must be a paid-up Apple dev to get it - The lack of flatMap on arrays and Optional is a gross oversight - We couldn't implement flatMap ourselves either, as it seems you can extend an Array, but we couldn't find a way to get at the generic type information - There's no way to catch exceptions Overall, it felt (to me) very much like a work-in-progress. On 11 June 2014 21:29, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote: C is essentially the recognized, practical high-level portable assembler language. It's the closest thing to assembler that allows production of portable source code that has been proven to work for developing a huge range of software (drivers, operating systems, embedded control, servers, desktop applications, etc...) for a huge range of hardware and operating systems. C is essentially never too big or too slow. Combined with its huge mindshare it seems almost permanently ensconced as the almost bare metal tool. Sure something will likely dethrone it someday -- but I'd not bet on that day being soon. On the other hand, is C truly a high enough language for *effective *development of some of the world's biggest applications? Not really. Is it really the most effective tool for developing smaller applications that don't really have to be to the metal? Arguably not. As such C will frequently be passed over for many of these sorts of projects (at the very least by C++, but often by Java, C#, and a long list of languages). -- Jess Holle On 6/11/2014 2:28 PM, clay wrote: Your reasons for preferring C are stability and long term longevity? Are those factors really that important? If a language only lasts 40 years rather than 100 or 1000 years, do you actually care? Like in a roaches will outlast human kind sort of way? Is stability the big thing holding you back from Java or C#? For all the legitimate gripes about Java/C#, basic stability and compiler crashes generally are not among them. Secondly, that isn't consistent with your preference of Scala on the JVM and Idris off the JVM. I find it hard to believe that Scala+Idris have better stability than Java and will be around longer than Java. I prefer Scala over Java for the advanced elegance, conciseness, and expression, but IMO, Scala has been a buggier language than Java, it's less serious about backward compatibility, and it probably won't last as many decades into the future as a legacy technology as Java will. Other tools might not have the VM cost, but they all have some performance profile that can be quantified and logically compared. Java often does fairly well in those tests. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote: I'm not saying I agree, but there are reasons. C works. You aren't going to get a compiler segfault, then discover a debugger bug while trying to debug the compiler, then fix that only to find that your build tool doesn't work when your path contains spaces, and then find that you can't read MP3 files without an extra library that hasn't been maintained since the big bang, etc. If you need to write your own C compiler for any reason, nobody is going to sue you. C will still exist when Objective-C, PHP, ASP, VB, Perl, Python, Ruby and probably C# and Java, have all bitten the dust, because it *actually* works everywhere and is kind of a base on which pretty much everything else can be built without incurring 'the VM cost', however imaginary or real that cost may be. It's also almost one of *the* bases, barring the 100s of special cases it is a really simple language, kind of fundamental the same way Scheme, Smalltalk and
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:21:48 AM UTC-5, Josh Berry wrote: Pretty sure c/c++ will remain the best cross platform option for a long time. Whatever promise of Java and related languages as providing cross platform environments, this just never happened. Closest would actually be .net and friends, I believe. The Java cross platform model targets Win/Mac/Linux workstations and it does that extremely well. It's not just cross platform, but largely write once, run anywhere, where same compiled .jar file can run on Win/Mac/Linux. What Java doesn't do is target game consoles at all. Technically it's possible, but it's not a practical reality for end developers at the moment. Java/JVM-iOS is limited, although lots of games use RoboVM for this. And Android uses Java, but the API is completely separate from other platforms, so there is no write once type code sharing. Most high-level languages are extremely cross platform. Lua, for example, is extremely cross platform and is often used on top of a C-based game engine. Most of .NET's cross platform success is through the Unity game engine, which is mostly written in C, but uses Mono/C# for scripting like other games use Lua or UnrealScript. They also have MonoGame and tools for making Android/iOS apps in C# using largely platform native APIs which prohibits any type of write once code sharing. Many languages like Haskell, usually just compile down to C, so I don't see why those would be less cross platform friendly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, clay claytonw...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:21:48 AM UTC-5, Josh Berry wrote: Pretty sure c/c++ will remain the best cross platform option for a long time. Whatever promise of Java and related languages as providing cross platform environments, this just never happened. Closest would actually be .net and friends, I believe. The Java cross platform model targets Win/Mac/Linux workstations and it does that extremely well. It's not just cross platform, but largely write once, run anywhere, where same compiled .jar file can run on Win/Mac/Linux. Apologies, I was a definitely too absolute in my claim. I was more just going on admittedly anecdotal evidence that most truly cross platform applications that aren't a) ugly, or b) dog slow are not written in Java and related languages. I'm definitely open to counters. But, once you get that list made, compare it to the number of applications that are heavily used in many platforms and the language they used. From the Kernel, which is on near everything, to browsers. Mozilla is at least making a stab with a new language that will compete with C/C++. It isn't clear this will win, though. Most high-level languages are extremely cross platform. Lua, for example, is extremely cross platform and is often used on top of a C-based game engine. Lua doesn't try to be the language that you write your application in, though. Or does it nowdays? Last I saw, it was picked specifically because it was easy to embed in a C program. Many languages like Haskell, usually just compile down to C, so I don't see why those would be less cross platform friendly. I want to agree with you, but I would prefer evidence. :) Also, and I apologize if this is basically goal post shifting, but when I refer to cross platform, I don't necessarily mean just linux/mac/windows. I mean something that can run on the raspberry pi, or aduino, or *any* phone/tablet/whatever. Obviously, not just any C program can be made to fit this bill. But, to my knowledge, no Java program can. (Of course, maybe Angry Birds is all it takes to prove me wrong. Or Scumm games, in general. :) ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On 05/06/14 18:21, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
Funny how everyone wants to claim that Swift was inspired by their
${favorite_language} when the definitive answer is available directly
from the presentation:
Inline image 1
C, C++, Objective C, Java, Ruby, Python, Javascript, Perl, Groovy and LUA.
I raise your definitive answer with:
...drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell, Ruby, Python, C#,
CLU, and far too many others to list. [1]
(More seriously it's very clearly part of a generation of OO languages
that have picked up tricks from ML and Haskell -- start java-ish, favour
optional / maybe over null, enum / either, switch / match pattern
matching with destructuring).
Damian
[1] http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java
Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
I find all these inspired by conjectures a bit vapid, but just to play
along, I would argue that Swift belongs in the generation of languages
sparked by C and C++, with which it has much more in common than with
Haskell and ML languages.
To me, Swift seems to validate the pendulum in the middle approach that
we started seeing with Ceylon and Kotlin. Java looks fairly primitive today
(pendulum left), Scala is reasonably advanced and pioneered a lot of
interesting features in that family of languages (pendulum right) and
Ceylon/Kotlin/Swift advocate a middle ground approach that takes the best
of both extremes (pendulum in the middle).
--
Cédric
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 AM, shellac pldms+goo...@mac.com wrote:
On 05/06/14 18:21, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
Funny how everyone wants to claim that Swift was inspired by their
${favorite_language} when the definitive answer is available directly
from the presentation:
Inline image 1
C, C++, Objective C, Java, Ruby, Python, Javascript, Perl, Groovy and LUA.
I raise your definitive answer with:
...drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell, Ruby, Python, C#,
CLU, and far too many others to list. [1]
(More seriously it's very clearly part of a generation of OO languages
that have picked up tricks from ML and Haskell -- start java-ish, favour
optional / maybe over null, enum / either, switch / match pattern
matching with destructuring).
Damian
[1] http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java
Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
In the interests of playing Devil's advocate here, there's a very
convincing argument to be made here for the middle not being the best at
all:
Courtesy of Erik Meijer:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2611829
On 6 June 2014 17:19, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
I find all these inspired by conjectures a bit vapid, but just to play
along, I would argue that Swift belongs in the generation of languages
sparked by C and C++, with which it has much more in common than with
Haskell and ML languages.
To me, Swift seems to validate the pendulum in the middle approach that
we started seeing with Ceylon and Kotlin. Java looks fairly primitive today
(pendulum left), Scala is reasonably advanced and pioneered a lot of
interesting features in that family of languages (pendulum right) and
Ceylon/Kotlin/Swift advocate a middle ground approach that takes the best
of both extremes (pendulum in the middle).
--
Cédric
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 AM, shellac pldms+goo...@mac.com wrote:
On 05/06/14 18:21, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
Funny how everyone wants to claim that Swift was inspired by their
${favorite_language} when the definitive answer is available directly
from the presentation:
Inline image 1
C, C++, Objective C, Java, Ruby, Python, Javascript, Perl, Groovy and LUA.
I raise your definitive answer with:
...drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell, Ruby, Python, C#,
CLU, and far too many others to list. [1]
(More seriously it's very clearly part of a generation of OO languages
that have picked up tricks from ML and Haskell -- start java-ish, favour
optional / maybe over null, enum / either, switch / match pattern
matching with destructuring).
Damian
[1] http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java
Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
So you're arguing for the Java approach then?
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the interests of playing Devil's advocate here, there's a very
convincing argument to be made here for the middle not being the best at
all:
Courtesy of Erik Meijer:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2611829
On 6 June 2014 17:19, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
I find all these inspired by conjectures a bit vapid, but just to play
along, I would argue that Swift belongs in the generation of languages
sparked by C and C++, with which it has much more in common than with
Haskell and ML languages.
To me, Swift seems to validate the pendulum in the middle approach that
we started seeing with Ceylon and Kotlin. Java looks fairly primitive today
(pendulum left), Scala is reasonably advanced and pioneered a lot of
interesting features in that family of languages (pendulum right) and
Ceylon/Kotlin/Swift advocate a middle ground approach that takes the best
of both extremes (pendulum in the middle).
--
Cédric
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 AM, shellac pldms+goo...@mac.com wrote:
On 05/06/14 18:21, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
Funny how everyone wants to claim that Swift was inspired by their
${favorite_language} when the definitive answer is available directly
from the presentation:
Inline image 1
C, C++, Objective C, Java, Ruby, Python, Javascript, Perl, Groovy and LUA.
I raise your definitive answer with:
...drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell, Ruby, Python, C#,
CLU, and far too many others to list. [1]
(More seriously it's very clearly part of a generation of OO languages
that have picked up tricks from ML and Haskell -- start java-ish, favour
optional / maybe over null, enum / either, switch / match pattern
matching with destructuring).
Damian
[1] http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Java Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java
Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Nope!
C or Idris, I'll also accept Assembler.
and Scala's the least bad you can get if otherwise tied to the JVM. :)
On 6 June 2014 18:00, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
So you're arguing for the Java approach then?
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the interests of playing Devil's advocate here, there's a very
convincing argument to be made here for the middle not being the best at
all:
Courtesy of Erik Meijer:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2611829
On 6 June 2014 17:19, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
I find all these inspired by conjectures a bit vapid, but just to play
along, I would argue that Swift belongs in the generation of languages
sparked by C and C++, with which it has much more in common than with
Haskell and ML languages.
To me, Swift seems to validate the pendulum in the middle approach
that we started seeing with Ceylon and Kotlin. Java looks fairly primitive
today (pendulum left), Scala is reasonably advanced and pioneered a lot of
interesting features in that family of languages (pendulum right) and
Ceylon/Kotlin/Swift advocate a middle ground approach that takes the best
of both extremes (pendulum in the middle).
--
Cédric
--
Cédric
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:46 AM, shellac pldms+goo...@mac.com wrote:
On 05/06/14 18:21, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
Funny how everyone wants to claim that Swift was inspired by their
${favorite_language} when the definitive answer is available directly
from the presentation:
Inline image 1
C, C++, Objective C, Java, Ruby, Python, Javascript, Perl, Groovy and LUA.
I raise your definitive answer with:
...drawing ideas from Objective-C, Rust, Haskell, Ruby, Python, C#,
CLU, and far too many others to list. [1]
(More seriously it's very clearly part of a generation of OO languages
that have picked up tricks from ML and Haskell -- start java-ish, favour
optional / maybe over null, enum / either, switch / match pattern
matching with destructuring).
Damian
[1] http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Java Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Java Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Kevin Wright
mail: kevin.wri...@scalatechnology.com
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda
kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
twitter: @thecoda
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright
steam: kev_lee_wright
My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not
regard them as lines produced but as lines spent: the current
conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side
of the ledger ~ Dijkstra
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java
Posse group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:28:56 +0200, BoD bodlu...@gmail.com wrote: Ok thanks for this link, interesting stuff there indeed :) I guess I'll google a bit to see if I can understand the difference between ARC and a GC. I'm just catching up with the email and feeds after four days of totally isolation and I'm still reading Cédric's post... In any case, this ARC vs GC subject recalls me of the first days with Java. ARC is just a primitive way to do automatically memory management and it's definitely more limited than GC. It basically keeps a counter of users of a given object releasing it when the counter decrements back to zero, so -for instance - pure ARC can't solve circular references: two objects linking each other will keep at least a value of 1 on their linked objects, preventing collection. -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. We make Java work. Everywhere. http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
With Swift's ARC you have unowned and weak references, which you're expected to use to resolve such issues. So the programmer certainly has more responsibility for memory management -- hopefully with greater speed as a result, else it's just a universally bad idea. On 6/5/2014 5:27 AM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:28:56 +0200, BoD bodlu...@gmail.com wrote: Ok thanks for this link, interesting stuff there indeed :) I guess I'll google a bit to see if I can understand the difference between ARC and a GC. I'm just catching up with the email and feeds after four days of totally isolation and I'm still reading Cédric's post... In any case, this ARC vs GC subject recalls me of the first days with Java. ARC is just a primitive way to do automatically memory management and it's definitely more limited than GC. It basically keeps a counter of users of a given object releasing it when the counter decrements back to zero, so -for instance - pure ARC can't solve circular references: two objects linking each other will keep at least a value of 1 on their linked objects, preventing collection. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:38:11 +0200, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote: With Swift's ARC you have unowned and weak references, which you're expected to use to resolve such issues. So the programmer certainly has more responsibility for memory management -- hopefully with greater speed as a result, else it's just a universally bad idea. How much greater? Because in Java GC is hardly a speed problem nowadays (unless we're talking of games, which at this age I'm completely unaware of). -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. We make Java work. Everywhere. http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote: How much greater? Because in Java GC is hardly a speed problem nowadays (unless we're talking of games, which at this age I'm completely unaware of). I think it is less unless we're talking of games and more unless we are talking of somewhat resource constrained devices. Games are easy to discuss in this context as they are usually attempting to use every resource of their host platform as efficiently as possible. So, while it is great that memory is getting cheaper and cheaper every day, I am at a loss as to why the twitter app requires upwards of 80megs on my phone. More, if I can let it. And that is just twitter. I am also curious is to how this affects battery life. And, of course, I could probably get by with just buying a newer phone. :) I've thus far avoided the upgrade cycle of disposable electronics. Just doesn't feel responsible. -josh fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
This one has also been doing the rounds recently: https://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/ On 5 June 2014 16:41, Josh Berry tae...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote: How much greater? Because in Java GC is hardly a speed problem nowadays (unless we're talking of games, which at this age I'm completely unaware of). I think it is less unless we're talking of games and more unless we are talking of somewhat resource constrained devices. Games are easy to discuss in this context as they are usually attempting to use every resource of their host platform as efficiently as possible. So, while it is great that memory is getting cheaper and cheaper every day, I am at a loss as to why the twitter app requires upwards of 80megs on my phone. More, if I can let it. And that is just twitter. I am also curious is to how this affects battery life. And, of course, I could probably get by with just buying a newer phone. :) I've thus far avoided the upgrade cycle of disposable electronics. Just doesn't feel responsible. -josh fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
I also assume ARC requires less memory than GC does for decent performance. GC is maximally easy for the developer, but conversely assumes a certain wealth of computing resources. On 6/5/2014 11:51 AM, Kevin Wright wrote: This one has also been doing the rounds recently: https://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/ On 5 June 2014 16:41, Josh Berry tae...@gmail.com mailto:tae...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it mailto:fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote: How much greater? Because in Java GC is hardly a speed problem nowadays (unless we're talking of games, which at this age I'm completely unaware of). I think it is less unless we're talking of games and more unless we are talking of somewhat resource constrained devices. Games are easy to discuss in this context as they are usually attempting to use every resource of their host platform as efficiently as possible. So, while it is great that memory is getting cheaper and cheaper every day, I am at a loss as to why the twitter app requires upwards of 80megs on my phone. More, if I can let it. And that is just twitter. I am also curious is to how this affects battery life. And, of course, I could probably get by with just buying a newer phone. :) I've thus far avoided the upgrade cycle of disposable electronics. Just doesn't feel responsible. -josh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com mailto:javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
No, ARC is emphatically *not* garbage collection. It's not new either, Objectionable-C does it, as does auto_ptr in C++ There's a pretty accurate summary of the language on quora: http://www.quora.com/How-does-Swift-Apple-Programming-Language-compare-with-other-modern-programming-languages Though I'm upset that the most popular answer fails to mention the complete lack of features for tackling concurrency! On 3 June 2014 20:30, BoD bodlu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Cedric this is a nice summary / first look at the language! I notice the language features something they call Automatic Reference Counting. Is this the same as a Garbage Collector? -- BoD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Ok thanks for this link, interesting stuff there indeed :) I guess I'll google a bit to see if I can understand the difference between ARC and a GC. -- BoD On 04/06/2014 10:23, Kevin Wright wrote: No, ARC is emphatically *not* garbage collection. It's not new either, Objectionable-C does it, as does auto_ptr in C++ There's a pretty accurate summary of the language on quora: http://www.quora.com/How-does-Swift-Apple-Programming-Language-compare-with-other-modern-programming-languages Though I'm upset that the most popular answer fails to mention the complete lack of features for tackling concurrency! On 3 June 2014 20:30, BoD bodlu...@gmail.com mailto:bodlu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Cedric this is a nice summary / first look at the language! I notice the language features something they call Automatic Reference Counting. Is this the same as a Garbage Collector? -- BoD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com mailto:javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
I wonder about Swift in terms of performance of apps. Traditionally Games companies use C++ for their games engines and on iOS just use the minimum Objective-C to act as the glue to the operating system. For all Objective-C apps then yes Swift will be a big improvement but for those where it was kept to a minimum the difference may not be as dramatic. I think it is good that Apple are moving away from Objective-C. Objective-C did feel like a pet project of Steve Jobs and now that he is no longer leading Apple they have the opportunity to replace it with something more modern. It shouldn't be hard for swift to be more modern than Objective-C. I expect as I will be developing mobile apps for my company I will have the chance to give a first hand verdict of what I think of Swift. To be honest it is kind of nice to think I may manage to dodge having to do so much Objective-C as long as swift is backwards compatible with older versions of iOS. I hope it is. Carl On 4 June 2014 16:50, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote: Though I'm upset that the most popular answer fails to mention the complete lack of features for tackling concurrency! I'm unconvinced there is any point to syntactic support for concurrency. Support concurrency in the runtime/bytecode and the libraries, absolutely. But in the syntax? What does that buy you besides complicating the grammar? -- Cédric -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote: Though I'm upset that the most popular answer fails to mention the complete lack of features for tackling concurrency! I'm unconvinced there is any point to syntactic support for concurrency. Support concurrency in the runtime/bytecode and the libraries, absolutely. But in the syntax? What does that buy you besides complicating the grammar? -- Cédric -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Carl Jokl carl.j...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder about Swift in terms of performance of apps. Traditionally Games companies use C++ for their games engines and on iOS just use the minimum Objective-C to act as the glue to the operating system. For all Objective-C apps then yes Swift will be a big improvement but for those where it was kept to a minimum the difference may not be as dramatic. Pretty sure c/c++ will remain the best cross platform option for a long time. Whatever promise of Java and related languages as providing cross platform environments, this just never happened. Closest would actually be .net and friends, I believe. Even the rise of such interesting projects as the unreal engine in the browser seems to be taking advantage of the fact that the cross platform portion is just a c dialect language. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Pretty interesting overall, certainly a more modern language than Objective C. I posted a quick overview on my blog (interesting discussion on reddit at the bottom of the page): http://beust.com/weblog/2014/06/02/swift-apples-new-language/ -- Cédric On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, BoD bodlu...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday Apple announced the Swift language. Personally, I've never liked Objective C so it's definitely a step up - and as a Java developer I have to admit Swift definitely looks good! Any thoughts, observations, etc.? -- BoD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [The Java Posse] Any thoughts on Swift?
Thanks Cedric this is a nice summary / first look at the language! I notice the language features something they call Automatic Reference Counting. Is this the same as a Garbage Collector? -- BoD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Java Posse group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
