That's interesting considering all the FUD generated by the die-hard Java camp against first-class language support and the associated complexity of C#. It's funny, almost as if seasoned Java people want to protect their hard earned skillset rather than gaining abstractions that makes it easy to solve common problems for the rest.
/Casper On 10 Feb., 02:07, gafter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 7, 5:13 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 1 - complexity > > > It would be nice if the language spec is grokkable by your average > > programmer. > > Average programmers don't read language specifications, they read > tutorials. The language feature itself should be grokkable by your > average programmer after minimal study - that is, it should be > straightforward to build a mental model of what any new construct > means. But reading a formal language spec is hard and requires > specialized skills that average programmers don't have or need. > > > C# is -far- worse at this, where even a seasoned C# > > programmer can easily be surprised. A 'C# puzzlers' book, if anyone > > would make one, would probably come in 26 volumes and take up half a > > bookshelf. > > Working on it. About half of the Java puzzlers apply, and the other > half don't. I think we're likely to come up with about the same > amount of material for C# as we did for Java. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
