great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's very very powerful
I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies together, etc. That's why I am a big fan of RoR. My architecture is pretty much already done: I have a directory structure, a build system, an Ajax framework, a database migration system (which doesn't even exist in java world really), an ORM layer, and plugins for background jobs, deployment etc. If I don't like some of the choices I can easily override (like datamapper instead of active record, jquery instead of prototype, etc) In other words I don't like re-inventing the wheel :) Of course there are things I really hate about RoR (like it's dependence on native code ) On Jan 9, 9:29 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these > debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the > Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of > Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of > both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for > this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve > your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more > complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be. > For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. > Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker > with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292. > > /Casper > > On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. > > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day > > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of > > > classloader hacks. > > > > /Casper --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
