Surely it's not some absolute measure of benefit that counts here, but a more relative measure like cost/benefit.
Imagine 2 possible languages: language A: very similar syntax to Java, uses the same IDE via plugins, can build with Ant or Maven, runs on the JVM language B: loosely Java-like syntax, uses an IDE with a familiar feel, VM based with garbage collection, etc. language C: radically different syntax, has its own unique dev env and build tools, compiles to native code I imagine you'd consider language A for relatively small benefit, whereas C would have to offer a LOT for you to make the change. On 1 September 2010 15:44, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 15:31, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Solving end-user problems is far more important than learning crazy > >> new programming paradigms. > > Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it appears to be saying "new > programming > > paradigms don't help solve end-user problems." I agree that they do not > > intrinsically help solve problems, but I would be hesitant to say they > don't > > offer any help at all. > > I am still faster in delivering a project written in VB for many > cases, although there are many good and better paradigms for me using > Java. So I really like more programming in Java but this does not mean > that it helps the customer a lot who maybe is not interesting in > long-term-vision of ROI. That - in my case - is basically summed up > in: There is simply more ready and already there. A new programming > language must go a long way to evolve in any case. That means: There > must be REAL BIG advantages that makes it worth the effort of > switching the language. This might be less relevant for a language > that already offers most of the things I had before. > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 15:46, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > I did not want to classify all new languages as crazy, but I meant > such to be included. > And: I would say, there were far more crazy ideas that did not become > facts than those which did. > > -- > 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] nexus: kev.lee.wright 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.
