Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: can't throw
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:00:12 +0200
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <abpaa7F83rkU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <19af6b94-7a1e-4491-afb2-79782406f560@googlegroups.com> <k2o8sm$ve3$1@dont-email.me> <fea53dab-0659-4f9f-af44-c181c4508aa1@googlegroups.com> <504fe3a6$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <JfidnSXpZ8hSLc7NnZ2dnUVZ7oydnZ2d@giganews.com> <abm3i5Ffm3dU1@mid.individual.net> <4NmdnaSmEpADlMvNnZ2dnUVZ7oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <abmrhnFla58U1@mid.individual.net> <6s4d58legju3enqvh78ksjdb28mmvrrs5i@4ax.com> <abnrfuFrpl1U1@mid.individual.net> <e6le58h0850b7gu56vqpa729p9kimfgtbn@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net A2Y/lsky5gT2gTCqjRqRiwenyVo76HZ4XVuhL9BxvMt43vtEtRiLviaWFy+v/5qi4=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kmNGUR3YEFjmy+iXE8DlM9/COTg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
In-Reply-To: <e6le58h0850b7gu56vqpa729p9kimfgtbn@4ax.com>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:18810

On 17.09.2012 18:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17.09.2012 05:07, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0200, Robert Klemme
>>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> 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?
>
>       If.
>
>       One can drown in huge languages.  Features can interact in
> "interesting" ways.

Yes, of course.  But the "if" applies the other way round.  As I said: 
small or large in itself are no values.

Cheers

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/