Reinier has been posting some things I agree with recently. What's up with that??
While I agree with the general sentiment that simpler is better, I don't prescribe to this mantra that all problems are solved by making languages terse. I think you can't help but trade some problems for others. It's gets complicated when you think about languages being 'general purpose' and code being written which can be understood and maintained by lowest common denominator developers. I think that if you can put together a shortlist of requirements by IT management you end up with an intractable problem. While I agree that language design is important in that it shapes our thinking and our approach to problems, I also think there are bigger issues that we overlook. I see most problems are driven by the fact that most systems are a mess of half-implemented models that hang together by chance. The role of Architect has been relegated to selecting hardware and protocols but not enforcing sanity at the lower levels where it really matters. The legacy we leave is disorganised and chaotic. Maybe static analysis will help the HAL 9000 work out what the f*ck we were on about. Do you think HAL will communicate via HTTP and JavaScript and access data with SQL? On a side note, Queensland Rail now offers priority seating for excited transvestites (office friendly link): http://twitpic.com/27sm8d (Well, it IS Queens-land) -- 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.
