On Nov 12, 2007 6:18 AM, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the motivation of tweaking Java simply that existing Java programmers might > find it easier to learn a new language that looks similar?
It's no accident that Java itself looks much like C++, though its semantics are far more like Smalltalk with static typing bolted on. Syntax is as important to programming languages as appearance, dressing, and grooming are to people; that is, it determines about 99% of accept/reject decisions. The aggregate of those decisions determines whether a language dies, remains a niche language forever (or until its users die), or grows. Your choice. Currently, the MLs and the Lisps seem to be niche languages without a niche; you can use them for anything, but almost no one wants to. -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
