Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: can't throw Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200 Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <19af6b94-7a1e-4491-afb2-79782406f560@googlegroups.com> <504fe3a6$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4NmdnaSmEpADlMvNnZ2dnUVZ7oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <6s4d58legju3enqvh78ksjdb28mmvrrs5i@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net WzVimfKH+R/Bzb3nQ9pItAp8l+iFArlOMzAHZbe/u4aBOMH16pOhwK3nzaD9QZUOg= Cancel-Lock: sha1:k4R+6FAV1nq/vcWe5516FDasPSY= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 In-Reply-To: <6s4d58legju3enqvh78ksjdb28mmvrrs5i@4ax.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:18797 On 17.09.2012 05:07, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0200, Robert Klemme > wrote: > > [snip] > >> My point was not that it can't be made "safe". I rather questioned >> whether the additional complexity introduced in the language would be >> beneficial (even if we let compatibility issues aside for the moment). > > The architecture astronauts got Java long ago. > > While C has many trade-offs that I disagree with, one thing that > they got right is that it is a small language. But "small" is not a value in itself. Programming languages are tools and a small language might have less complexity than necessary to solve today's problems. If you can learn it fast (because it is small) but then you need to go through hoops every day to write the code that you need to write, what have you gained? Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/