I assume that most people here saw this presentation from JavaOne when JavaFX 2.0 fever was sweeping teh interwebs:
http://jonathangiles.net/blog/?p=916 <http://jonathangiles.net/blog/?p=916>(warning, PDF) On 9 March 2011 16:09, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > Presumably because at the time of writing JRuby and Scala were in their > infancy. As regards Java, few build tools actually use a compiled language, > as you end up with a recursive problem if you're not careful. At the moment > I can only think of SBT (the build is written in Scala) and Gosling, an > aborted attempt at doing ant but with Java source code, neither of which > existed in 2003 when that article was written. > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]>wrote: > >> In the article, Duncan refers to Jonathan Simon's push to >> Jython<http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2003/06/10/jython.html>as a >> programming replacement for XML. As I read over Simon's points in >> favor of Jython, it occurred to me that he was advocating methods to relieve >> problems seen in XML-based programming languages that operate in the JVM. >> Problems like excessive verbosity, awkward syntax constructs, shortcomings >> of expressiveness that cause Java or other languages to bleed into XML, lack >> of scoping definitions. He's making the same points that were touched on in >> this thread earlier, but he's also elevating Jython as a solution to all XML >> problems for no particular reason. >> >> In the JellySwing example, he correctly states all the problems that arise >> when you try to use XML for a complex Java UI, but he skips over the fact >> that Java itself has declarative syntax capabilities and instead proceeds to >> Jython. In fact, his Jython version of the code is not too dissimilar from >> what it would look like in standard Java even without the declarative style. >> >> When he talks about Ant, he immediately looks at the direction the >> community has taken in making Ant a full-bore programming language through >> general purpose, but awkward scripting language extensions. Agreed: bad >> idea. But here again, he doesn't address why mixing specialized plugins >> written in a different language (which, thanks to all the latest langauges >> on the JVM can be written in whatever is "right" for the job) would be worse >> than throwing XML out altogether and switching everything over to Jython. >> Why not Java, or Scala, or JRuby, or god knows what else? There doesn't >> seem to be a coherent argument made in favor of the proposed solution. And >> the question of why Ant is so bad as an extensible glue language that >> plays well with underlying OS environments as well as the JVM world remains >> untouched. >> >> Alexey >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* phil swenson <[email protected]> >> *To:* Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>; >> Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>; Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wed, March 9, 2011 10:22:26 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [The Java Posse] Is learning languages overrated? >> >> This mostly covers it. >> >> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/duncan/archive/2003/06/ant_dotnext.html >> >> 2011/3/9 Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> >> >>> Even the guy who created ant (James Duncan Davidson) now thinks XML was a >>>> bad idea. >>> >>> >>> Do you have a reference for that? I used to have one but it disappeared. >>> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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 gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
