retard wrote:
Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:06:24 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
""Jérôme M. Berger"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I actually find that funny. Something in Java that isn't an Object? I
remember "Everything's an object!" being paraded around as a selling
point.
Yes, in Java, everything is an object except where that bothered
the language "designers". There are several such design decisions in
Java...
Yea, that's a good example of why I've grown a distaste towards
hard-and-fast religious design strategies. The designer inevitably comes
across cases where it just doesn't work particularly well, and then
they're forced to either stay true to their misguided principles by
accepting an awkward problematic design, or contradict their alleged
principles and go with a better design. And when they do the latter,
that runs the risk of causing problems in other areas that had been
relying on the old principle being rigidly followed.
Part of the "religious" feel of Java comes from the fact that it runs on
a VM. The safe memory model imposes some restrictions as you might have
noticed in SafeD. The 'everything is an Object' idea is a bit broken,
performance-wise. That's why C# added reified types. The reason they
added primitive types has a rationale behind it. The decision made the VM
a useful tool for real enterprise applications.
Hear, hear. The idea that "everything is a Object" is definitely
broken. Java cannot fix this misidea and this leaves an opportunity for
newcomer languages (or oldcomer languages in new clothes).
