Path: csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe21.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail From: Owen Jacobson Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Message-ID: <2011020510425674637-angrybaldguy@gmailcom> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Java vs C++ User-Agent: Unison/2.1.3 Lines: 21 X-Complaints-To: abuse@UsenetServer.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 15:42:56 UTC Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:42:56 -0500 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25558 On 2011-02-05 06:15:07 -0500, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said: > This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m > currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++ > Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no > longer that far off C++ in complexity. This is an extremely dubious measure of complexity. The Common Lisp specification is over a thousand pages long in some editions*, but Lisp is generally considered a much simpler language than either C++ or Java. You've posted extensively about things you see in Java that you don't like, and there's a strong "C++ is better" undercurrent to your posts. While I disagree with the undercurrent, I will defend to the death your right to program in C++ instead. Just, please, go away. -o * , which predates the ANSI spec.