Yes of course. Or, to nuance it a bit: I think the attitude is: I can do everything I need in my current language, though this new language seems to let me do a few things more simply. But I don't understand half of it [*1] and I've seen a few things that seem uglier [*2], and even if I had all the time in the world, spending it learning my favourite language better is possibly better spent [*3]. Meh. I'm not convinced.
[*1]: Yes, duh, of course, it's a new language. However, this still plays a role, in my experience. One possible reason java is popular is that its relatively hard to write code that is very hard to understand without being obviously obfuscated. This isn't particularly relevant to the quality of a language (reading it and having a sense of understanding is different from grokking it completely, and also different from writing it, and this is purely about getting the feel you follow what's happening, not a judgement on whether doing common task X in language Y leads to readable code (it might be 20 pages of highly readable code, but that is still far less readable than half a page of harder to follow code). The point is: Many new languages look confusing. People make snap judgements. They have to in modern life, or you never get anything done. [*2]: It's human nature to equate unfamiliar with ugly. Many languages tend to do things differently for reasons that aren't obvious when just looking at syntax examples. The (perceived) mere change for the sake of change is off putting. One possible reason java is popular is that it went out of its way to look just like C. Exhibit A: java copied both C's switch and for statements. Only somebody who is insane, or who is explicitly trying to make their language look accessible to C programmers, would possibly do something that silly. A language designer focused on a nicer language surely wouldn't have gone there. [*3]: Learning another language is a good way to get better at your favourite language. Nevertheless, its a big, big time investment, compared to i.e. reading up on some java puzzlers, which is fun and takes an afternoon. You have to blow people away; I doubt syntax alone can do that. You need something else. Java blew people away with the write-once-run- anywhere model, unifying and standardizing _way more_ compared to C(+ +), and the "batteries included" concept. These were IMO necessary but not sufficient conditions (other languages had been there much earlier than java, of course). Add the stuff above (at casual glance, looks like C, and easy to follow), and we have a winner. I don't think Sun's marketing helped much, and Java _was_ to first one to combine all these things since C's hegemony. On Oct 3, 10:01 pm, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the attitude is more that you can do everything you need to in > the current language, so why would you want to switch? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > None of this is intended to denigrate any of the languages mentioned, of > > course. And believe-it-or not I had no specific individuals in mind either. > > But I am, and shall remain, convinced that computer science has learned a > > trick or two since BASIC, or COBOL, or any of the others were created. Some > > of these advances are just too painful to retrofit to a language that quite > > correctly places a high premium on backwards compatibility. > > The forces acting here are powerful, and impossible to reconcile. Which > > means that as a language matures, new concepts become ever harder to adopt. > > Historically, such change has instead been managed by the creation of new > > languages, for which backward compatibility is no longer an issue. > > I'll repeat... This is in no manner detrimental to earlier languages, they > > form an essential foundation to those that came later. But is it truly > > possible to embrace e.g. Pascal in preference to its immediate predecessor > > (Algol), which was in turn written to avoid some of the known flaws in > > Fortran - and yet simultaneously believe that Pascal is the pinnacle, that > > past languages were mere coincidence, and that Pascal could never possibly > > be improved upon? > > It seems a strangely contradictory attitude to take in a profession that is > > otherwise making bold steps to embrace change through power of agile > > methodologies > > > On 3 October 2010 12:54, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Absolutely. All of my experience is that developers willing to step > >> outside of their box, and to learn new languages and ideas are better for > >> it. > >> Not only does the learning experience expose you to more examples of > >> quality code, but you also end up with a larger "mental toolbox" of > >> approaches to learn from. I've already given JodaTime as an example of > >> this, google collections is another, you can find many more if you shop > >> around. > >> Nowadays, we're even starting to see some category theory trickle back > >> into > >> Java: http://apocalisp.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/structural-pattern-matching...All > >> of this cross-fertilization is a Very Good Thing(tm). > >> BASIC has its share of dogmatic and obstinate followers, unwilling to > >> accept change. As does COBOL, Pascal, Fortran, C#, etc. And yes, Java does > >> too. > >> Scala, F#, Haskell, Clojure... not so much. These languages all still > >> have very active communities, looking to explore the realms of what is > >> possible and definitely not set in their ways - a description that I > >> imagine > >> any good developer would like to have applied to themselves. > >> It's only natural, then, that a language actively seeking to push the > >> state of the art will also attract like-minded developers. But does this > >> mean that it's therefore unsuitable for anyone else? Of course not! But > >> there will always be some for whom their doctrine is a great comfort, and > >> these people *will* find it distressing if they should ever have to move to > >> a different language. > > >> On 3 October 2010 01:53, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> I agree though age of this exposure and the individuals mind set are > >>> paramount. Some people seem to be brain washed easily with other ideas, > >>> Religion for example, and others have been able to refute them quite > >>> easily > >>> based on alternative evidence regardless of the initial exposure time. > >>> There are other fundamental individual differences, for example life time > >>> learners and those who seem to become very limited, very early. This is > >>> not > >>> unique to technology by any means. I have seen both types of developer > >>> and > >>> I personally can not attribute this purely to languages they initially > >>> learned. Indeed many of them were brought up on something more structured > >>> such as C or Pascal or Modula II. However they appear to be equally adapt > >>> in using any languages and building complete crap or great systems with > >>> it. > > >>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> Long-term lack of exposure to significant programming paradigms has got > >>>> to impact your skills, how could it be otherwise? > >>>> I've witnessed the pain of others in transitioning from procedural to > >>>> object-oriented methodologies, it isn't pretty! > >>>> I've also seen OO abused when treated as the only paradigm in town. > >>>> It's the old story, "when all you have is a hammer..." > >>>> I highly recommend the fantastic "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns" > >>>> article for more on the subject: > > >>>> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns... > >>>> Closer to home, it's impossible that anyone would create the universally > >>>> hated Java Date/Time if they had first been exposed to functional > >>>> programming and the correct use of immutable objects (ideas that JodaTime > >>>> clearly embraced) > > >>>> So yes, BASIC can harm your skills, at least if you become > >>>> institutionalised within the language. > >>>> But it's not really BASIC that's at fault here, it's the concept if > >>>> being locked into a particular (restricted) way of doing things, and then > >>>> struggling to break free of the self-imposed prison that such an approach > >>>> can create. > > >>>> On 3 October 2010 00:24, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> I think its pretty irrelevant if you started on BASIC or any other > >>>>> language for that matter and how that has impacted your current skills. > >>>>> Someone who feels they have been technically crippled permanently from > >>>>> exposure to BASIC would likely be not very be technical anyway. > > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 07:36 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > >>>>>> [ . . . ] > >>>>>> > Basic is definitely not receiving enough credit, in my opinion. > >>>>>> > Actually, it's being unjustly vilified. Who was it again who said > >>>>>> > that > >>>>>> > anyone who started programming with Basic was irrecoverably corrupt > >>>>>> > and would never become a good programmer? > > >>>>>> Dijkstra, who is both the source of some great things that have > >>>>>> benefited programming and software development, and things that have > >>>>>> acted as barriers holding back software development for decades. > > >>>>>> "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to > >>>>>> students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential > >>>>>> programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of > >>>>>> regeneration." > > >>>>>> "I think of the company advertising 'Thought Processors' or the > >>>>>> college pretending that learning BASIC suffices or at least > >>>>>> helps, whereas the teaching of BASIC should be rated as a > >>>>>> criminal offence: it mutilates the mind beyond recovery." > > >>>>>> > I bet that a lot of people on this list started programming with > >>>>>> > Basic > >>>>>> > (myself included), and I think we turned out alright :-) > > >>>>>> Hummm... people who started with Basic and yet have become good > >>>>>> programmers in a number of languages must have great powers of > >>>>>> recovery > >>>>>> and regeneration. This must mean they are either vampires or trolls > >>>>>> ;-) > > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Russel. > > >>>>>> =========================================================================== > >>>>>> == > >>>>>> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > >>>>>> sip:[email protected] > >>>>>> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > >>>>>> London SW11 1EN, UK w:www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 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. > > >>>> -- > >>>> Kevin Wright > > >>>> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > >>>> pulse / 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. > > >>> -- > >>> 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. > > >> -- > >> Kevin Wright > > >> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright > >> twitter: @thecoda > > > -- > > Kevin Wright > > > mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > > pulse / 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. -- 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.
