i imagine supporting both apis increases maintenance costs while reducing performance. not a good combo. On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> > I'm guessing that Charles doesn't like that two-way JVM/CLR crap > because it either means code bases are targeted and wholly > incompatible (will you use java.util.List or c#.util.list?) or every > library needs to be rewritten as an abstraction that is capable of > targeting either library. Such abstractions are sometimes welcome, but > often just a pointless indirection and another API to learn. > > Incidentally, projectlombok.org's goals are pretty much that: A > java.next for the rest of us. Closures, more literals, probably > extension methods and operator overloading, properties, lots of > boilerplate elimination, et voila. > > On Aug 12, 12:52 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I like Fan. But to be honest, I wish there wasn't quite so much >>> attention paid to API-compatibility across both JVM and CLR worlds. >> >> You mean as in it's too easy to write code depending on one or the >> other? (selective interoperability rather than compatibility) >> >>> And it's not Scala; it's Scala++--. >> >> That just means it has the potential to attract the 90% of the >> current >> community who would otherwise choke on Scala. ;) >> >> /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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
