> I'd go so far as to say wordiness is not all bad.
> Almost all Java boils down to a few operators class, object, and field > references and method invocations. The syntax is simple and > predictable and that layer of the program's flow and structure is > entirely obvious at a glance to even fairly junior developers. Agreed. I went through a phase of wanting a concise/magical syntax, but realized the same thing: in most hands, the code will end up looking more like Perl than Java. I've since backed off and been (mostly) satisfied with Java. All it needs are a few features from C# (not LINQ necessarily, but just lambdas, static extension methods, and (local variable?) type inference). I still like explicit types on method definitions; it's for the readers' benefit for the writer to just type it out. But within a method, when creating/passing around lambdas, and other functional goodness, type inference would be very nice to have. Every few months I scout around for a language trying to incrementally improve Java, e.g. not as ambitious as Scala. Doubly ironically, given it's Python-based syntax and it's .NET heritage, boojay is the closest I've found so far. - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
