I must take offence at the automatic classification of new languages as being "crazy"!
That term has often been used in the past to criticise many scientific theories now accepted as fact. Is it crazy for me to believe that a type system should be turing complete, and based upon the rigorous foundation of category theory? On 1 September 2010 14:22, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 19:00, CKoerner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject says it all. > > People like you continously try to push me into moving to other > languages. And I continously loose time by starting (new) evaluations, > that all get me to the same conclusion again and again: > > NO, there is no alternative to Java. - Fullstop. > > And I mean it this way: For those who have chosen Java wisely and not > just use it because that's what they learned at university or at > school, they have chosen Java because of particular advantages. And I > can't see many of those in other languages - sorry. > > For no language the appropriate toolset is so comprehensive, stable and > proven. > > In no other case such a seamless usage on different OSes is given (no, > I don't want to compile again for each architecture and no, I don't > want to bother with different runtimes - e.g. .net versus mono). Yes, > there are a few OS specific issues, but this is far from what I see > with .net applications that run well on XP, but not on Win 7 and vice > versa. In many cases it is just sufficient taking care of a few small > things (e.g. no hardcoding of slashes or backslashes when building > filenames or line breaks when creating text files etc). > > There are a few dynamic languages I like very much - e.g. Python, but > IMHO too error prone all these. I feel that I even introduce too many > potential problems already in my Java code although the IDE tells me > so much about best practices or potential problems (simply because of > being static it can check more). > > Scala might be an option on the horizon - I find it nice the option to > compile against .net - however, then this will become an issue for > provided download options, compiling again for different platforms > etc. - Why should I want to introduce such issues (again) I already > solved by using Java? > > I do really totally agree with the caution that is put on adding new > stuff to Java and I am quite satisfied with what they plan for Java 7 > (as far as I got aware of the changes following only the main news and > not reading the appropriate mailing lists). > > In the last year I really lost too much time looking at x new > languages for no real benefit - basta! - I should have used that time > coding something meaningful! Hence I will put more focus again on my > current projects and less on learning new stuff. > > Solving end-user problems is far more important than learning crazy > new programming paradigms. > > -- > Martin Wildam > > http://www.google.com/profiles/mwildam > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
