yes. I've noticed the best/most successful projects are usually a small team of really smart people. Not design by committee. The JCP isn't appropriate for language design.
On Nov 22, 11:47 am, gafter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:40 pm, Patrick Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think that, in principle, Java could be extended in interesting ways > > and could take cues from other languages (including, sure, C#), but > > lately I'm tending to agree with Josh Bloch that Java's complexity > > budget is used up. Every change at this point seems to imply a great > > risk to instability (or unexpected side-effects) somewhere else in the > > language or the library ecosystem. > > > Another issue--and I'm not sure how MS addresses this--is that it's > > becoming very hard for any new proposal for changes to the language to > > gain much traction at this point; there's too much disagreement on > > each proposal (including, in the last year+, both properties and > > closures) and that makes it hard to build any real consensus. A lot of > > anger comes up in these discussions, and there are certainly those who > > would like to roll the releases back to 1.4, as well as those who > > would like Java the language to move forward aggressively. These > > people simply aren't finding common ground. So my guess is, Sun would > > have to try and "pull a JCP" and just dictate what the changes would > > be. But then, look at how much controversy Java 5 caused, for example; > > I think they just don't want to go through that again. > > I'm a Java programmer, and I'm learning C#. I was also a designer and > implementer of language features for Java, and now I'm doing that for > C# as a member of MS's language design team. C# is not more suited to > further evolution than Java, but it continues to evolve quite > successfully. So I can tell you exactly how MS addresses this. > > The perception that Java's complexity budget is used up, and that the > language is too brittle to undergo further evolution, arises commonly > among people who think themselves capable of language design but who > don't really have the background, training, or skills to do it. If > they attempt to draft or implement language proposals, when the > feedback arrives they realize there were many interactions that they > didn't consider, and that the task is far more difficult than they > thought. From this they come to the incorrect conclusion that the > language has become too complex and further evolution is impossible. > A related effect is that nonprofessionals sometimes mistake a formal > specification for a user guide, concluding that properly proposed > changes would be too difficult to use. Language design is not easy, > and like many other fields requires a great deal of work by > professionals. The ideal end product seems intuitive and easy to use, > but that hides the effort that went into creating it, resulting in the > false impression that language design is easy. > > The Java language is well suited to further evolution, provided that > the language design is done by professionals with the appropriate > skills. Most important is to have a single individual or a small like- > minded team responsible for the decisions to ensure consistency of the > whole. Language design is not a community exercise suitable for a > large-scale democratic process. Unfortunately, Sun doesn't seem > willing to invest in the resources to make it happen. That, more than > anything else, is the obstacle to the language's evolution. > > Regards, > Neal --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
