On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:36:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:31:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 14:43:11 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 14:11:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris wrote:
E.g. one day D might implement features that have to do
with what Facebook needs more than features that
programmers need in general. So a module
std.webshite.upload.latest.picture gets all the attention
while std.reallyhandy is being neglected.
Do you know one or two cases where this phenomenon has
happened to a language?
Bye,
bearophile
Good question! To be honest I cannot put my finger on any
module of any language in particular. Maybe Objective-C would
be an example where sometimes things would advance at
breakneck pace in Cocoa, while some handy features in the
standard Objective-C library (e.g. in NSString) would still
be missing (but that's years ago now, I haven't used it for a
while, so I dunno how it has developed).
Java is a good example of how (corporate) ideology (and
management) ruins things. Everything is a class, if you don't
want this, you create a class and declare static functions to
turn off OOP.
You know that this comes from the original concept of what OOP
is all about and Smalltalk, right?
There are no free functions in pure OO languages, like there
are no objects in pure FP languages.
Of course, meanwhile we have learned there are other ways to
do OO, but don't blame Java for Smalltalk concepts.
--
Paulo
I don't blame Java for Smalltalk. I just don't like ideological
constraints. As you said, we've learned that there are other
ways of doing OO, but how can people cling to things when they
know they are not good. I can't get my head around it. Same
goes for JVM. If you have JIT, why not go all the way and have
the _option_ to compile it to machine code?
Just get Aonix, J9, RoboVM, JET, Jasmine, JikesRVM, just to cite
a few examples.
There are plenty AOT compilers to chose from for Java.
Oracle JVM is not the only JDK around, although people tend to
think so.
--
Paulo
