I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
Because we want some functional capabilities doesn't mean we should go
throw out ALL restraints.  Restraints are good for developers,
especially teams.  I would worry about Clojure being too willing to
let developers do too much.  I don't know much about Clojure
specifically but the lack of structure in Lisp worries me.

I was recently asked (while giving a short presentation on alternative
languages) something to the effect of "It seems like old is new again
why are we going back to langauges we had years ago".  My response was
that we have had 20 more years of insight and research and find the
need to add a SELECT FEW things back in while still keeping many
features away from programmers to keep form hanging themselves.  I
think Java obviously overshot the mark but it was an overshoot that
had to happen in order to see what the next step should be.  Being
more recent I think C# is probably a very good compromise although
still too restrictive for my taste.  Scala is probably the best on the
JVM in my, humble, opinion.

On Jan 21, 10:31 am, JodaStephen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 10:25 am, Pete F <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > By contrast  -Fan, seems like a nice tasteful modern language   -but
> > it doesn't push any boundaries now does it? Java programmers don't
> > *need* to know about Fan.
>
> Fan has no shared mutable state and built in immutable classes. If you
> code today in Java with synchronized, then thats quite a change in
> thinking. Maybe not as big as Clojure, but then I happen to believe
> that the more evolutionary approach is more likely to succeed.
>
> Stephen
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to