I deliberately used specifiers such as
"a bit" or "sufficiently" to imply relation with the problem and not
with other languages, that is to show why I think it's adequate for
the task, not that it's optimal.
Why go with adequate when optimal is available? Aren't you the one who is
concerned with the existential risks of someone else getting to AGI first?
Or is this your way of slowing the process down?
C# may have advantages over Java, but
it doesn't mean that these advantages are particularly relevant for a
particular project.
Then make project-specific assertions. The fact that functional programming
is an integral part of C# is huge for AGI. (Your turn to make a valid point
:-)
alone .NET. As for language anarhcy and feature bloating that .NET
provides, it is not necessarily a good thing, project needs to enforce
reasonable uniformity to be manageable.
Tell us a little bit about yourself . . . . How many large projects have
you managed? Over what time period? In what language? How long were you
responsible for maintenance and enhancements afterwards? How many
subsequent, enhanced versions of your large projects were there? How many
times have you ported a large project from one environment/language to
another (or even one major software rev to another)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please
That list wasn't about the comparison with .NET, I only added a couple
of words about .NET at the end. I deliberately used specifiers such as
"a bit" or "sufficiently" to imply relation with the problem and not
with other languages, that is to show why I think it's adequate for
the task, not that it's optimal. C# may have advantages over Java, but
it doesn't mean that these advantages are particularly relevant for a
particular project. As Ben noted, even C++ goes, even when it clearly
doesn't have some of the important features that even Java has, let
alone .NET. As for language anarhcy and feature bloating that .NET
provides, it is not necessarily a good thing, project needs to enforce
reasonable uniformity to be manageable.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How is Java is *more* clear and understandable?
The IDE is *known* to be inferior. Are you arguing otherwise.
Every modern language has garbage collection.
Java has a functional programming stance? No, it does not. Look at what
you can do in the newest version of C# much less F#. If you believe that
Java has functional programming, you don't have any clue what you are
talking about.
Java's infrastructure is *much* smaller than that of .Net and fragmented.
Everybody knows it? The way syntax is these days, everybody knows Java
and
C# and VB.Net because they're basically the same language.
It is *not* any more portable for any sufficiently advanced application
than
anything else.
Oh, and for your reference, the vast majority of .Net is actually open
and
has been submitted to standards bodies. The problem is that Microsoft
advances it faster than the less-interested Linux people can port it so
Mono
always looks seriously inferior to what's available on Windows. What's
going to be embarrassing is about three to five years down the line when
Mono kicks Java's butt *and* it's still vastly inferior to what is
available
under Windows at that time.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And what is the value proposition of Java over any other language? It
has
no unique features. It's development is lagging. It's developers are
defecting (again, look at the statistics). It's fragmenting just like
Unix
so it certainly isn't as portable as claimed.
Java is clear and understandable, with clean semantics so that you can
refactor the code without breaking it and IDE knows its way around the
codebase, has garbage collection, a bit of functional programming
stance, is fast enough, has decent infrastructure and everybody knows
it. A bit verbose, but I haven't found it to be a serious problem. If
you don't need fragmented odd parts, it's sufficiently portable. If
you decide between .NET and Java, tradeoff is more subtle, as they are
essentially the same thing, except that .NET is not open and more
bloated -- which is more important for a particular project? I guess
openness outweighs is for an open-source project.
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
