I can appreciate the less-is-more argument, but at the end of the day C# still feels more pragmatic and you can move ahead faster. Some of the arguments used against C# can also be used against Scala (not the COM argument of course). The difference is that while C# has grown, and developers grew with it, Java got stale and developers were forced to live without certain fairly basic features or jump ship to other languages. The optimal might be somewhere in between, but unfortunately that language does not exist does it?
On Nov 15, 6:54 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> wrote: > The two are kind of related, a bit like how auto boxing was introduced to > assist working w/ Igenerics. Im pretty sure its safe to assume without > generics, autoboxing would not have come about. Maybe it took them ten years > but im sure if one goes thru the entire list of features in the c# even more > can be reasoned to have been introduced because of com direclty or as a side > effect accompanying some other feature that was introduced because of COM. > After this exercise it could be reasoned that one almost has a c# that looks > a lot like Java. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not named parameters as much as optional parameters that assists > > COM. Method resolution is certainly complex with those meassures! > > However, they waited 10 years before adding that, caving in to > > customer demand. -- 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.
