> Perhaps I should put it differently: Other than for folks who are > intricately familiar with C#'s syntax, why would I get any more > excited about stab than I would about Fantom? What does stab do that's > leaps better than Fantom?
I don't know, just wanted to point out a flaw in your logic/sentence. But since you ask, one thing appears to be static modelling of expression trees (read: LINQ). > I have zero interest in writing source code that can be moved back and > forth between JVM and .NET CLR runtime. Given JVM is very well > supported on Windows, it's a complete waste. > > I'd rather have a improved Java-like language that is highly > compatible to the JVM, the Java type system, and Java class libraries > such that I have no sense at all of programming in a language that > seems a bit out of place. 1) See that what I don't follow. Who cares what runtime is underneath? Very very few people should care about this, what they should care more about is having flexibility and choice i.e. it's nice to see Dalvik come in to save the day for mobile "Java". 2) You're missing the greater point, Fantom not only targets the CLR and the JVM. Charles Nutter's Mirah language shares a similar design goal btw. but goes even further. 3) Not sure what's so great about Java's type system, I suspect it's just because of comfort. :) /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.
