Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Justin Johansson" <proc...@adam-dott-com.au> wrote in message > news:h8ruu1$1qp...@digitalmars.com... >> Being somewhat of a fan of Elliotte Rusty Harold, I drop in for a coffee & >> read at his cafes from time to time. I think D people will enjoy this >> December 2008 article with amusement so may I please share it with you. >> Some of the comments aren't too bad either. >> >> http://cafe.elharo.com/programming/java-is-dead-long-live-python/ >> >> Here an excerpt: >> >> "Java by contrast, is dead. It has at least as much brain damage and >> misdesign as Python 2.x did, probably more; yet Sun has resisted tooth and >> nail all efforts to fix the known problems. Instead they keep applying >> ever more lipstick to this pig without ever cleaning off all the filth and >> mud it’s been rolling in for the last 12 years. They keep applying more >> perfume when what it really needs is a bath." >> >> Enjoy the read! >> > > What he was saying in that article sounded good...right up until he implied > that all primitives should always endure the bloat of always being full > objects. > > It really bugs me though that it's taken the industry until the last few > years to *FINALLY* start noticing that Emperor Java is missing it's clothes. > >
The post seems to make the argument that with modern processors we can afford making every primitive an object - and I say to that, as a coder heavily interested in raytracing and fractals, we _still_ need _all_ the speed the CPU can give us, so think twice before you consume in the name of language purity. (Of course, this doesn't apply to Python) Besides that, I think all the people here who say, and are going to say, that making primitives full objects would be the right decision (even for D!), need to remember that D at its core is _not_ an object-oriented, but a multiparadigm language, and I think embedding objects this deep into the type model would give the object-oriented features of D _far_ too much weight. (Just my pre-emptive 2¢)
