On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:30:56 +0100, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
For your previous question I'd like to keep this argument out of my answer. Discussing about the complexity of types will inevitably lead to Scala :-) and I don't want to bring Scala (or any other language) into the discussion now, because it's subjective (as you said, "they work rather well for THOSE THAT understand them". I only mentioned facilities that today are considered state of the art and rather orthogonal to most languages, where I think everybody agrees that there are both things that I was talking about: higher abstraction and higher complexity.
-- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." [email protected] http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it -- 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.
