On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:20:11 +0100, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Fabrizio Giudici >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> While I don't agree with the whole example, I think Kevin is right with >>> the >>> point that it's a matter of level of abstraction. >> >> >> I have to question whether constantly moving up that ladder is the >> correct way to go. Specifically, where is the diminishing return >> level of abstraction? > > > More complexity (in the entropic sense). Undoubtedly there's more entropy in > a Java algorithm making use of VM, hot spot, GC etc... than coding in native > machine language. Increased complexity is what you pay for more > productivity, manageability, readability, performance, etc...
So.... how do you identify this added complexity? For example, are higher kinded types out of the question? It seems they work rather well for those that understand them. And I'm inclined to agree with them that anyone can learn them if they put forth the effort. My question is simply is it worth the effort? -- 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.
