That's a lot of assumptions about a broad group of people you're putting out there.
On Feb 9, 9:07 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
