Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #22086

Re: refactoring problem

Show all headers | View raw

Silvio wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Silvio wrote:
>>> parameters. Nothing very dramatic that could not be added to the Java
>>> compiler if so desired.
> 
>> People are never satisfied. They wanted delegates, didn't get them, never mind Java got another
>> way to do the same thing. Then they wanted generics, and sorta got them. Then they wanted
>> runtime generics and didn't get them, never mind Java already had another way to do the same thing.
>> Then they wanted closures, and sorta got them, never mind Java already had another way to do the
>> same thing. Now they want tuples, never mind that Java already has another way to do the same thing.
>>
>> "Oh, it's just one more little thing!" they always exclaim. For a thousand little things.
>>
>> This is what happened to C++.
>>
>> Java will get all these things and the programming community will abandon the language,
>> bitching that it's gotten too "heavy".
>>
>> The argument "it's just one little change" is a well-known lie. It's how customers eat up the
>> profit margin for custom software. One thing and another and another and another and another
>> and the game is how long you can say, "I'm only just going to take Poland, nothing else" before
>> people realize I just incurred Godwin's Law.
> 
> I am not arguing things SHOULD be added to Java, just pointing out that 
> they COULD be added.

That was perfectly clear, and the context to which I spoke.

Unless you are also pitching that maybe it SHOULD be part of Java, stating that it 
COULD be added to Java is a noop. Anything COULD be added to Java. I'm in favor of an 
ENVIRONMENT section myself. 

Simply stating that something COULD be added to Java is pretty much an empty statement.

> In fact, I have expressed multiple times that I 
> think Java should be left alone (and should have been for quite some time).

And yet you suggest another feature anyway.

> Java used to be a reasonably orthogonal minimalistic language. That made 
> sense to me, just like languages like C++ or Scala which are 
> feature-rich make sense to me.
> 
> Features that have been added to Java in more recent versions are all 
> over the place. Now it is a somewhat minimalistic language with a random 
> and incoherent set of not so minimalistic features.
>  
> But as always, tastes will differ.

Well, the decisions as to what actually makes it into Java or not are not made on the basis 
of taste.

Which is arguably the worst of seemingly plausible criteria for inclusion.

-- 
Lew

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

refactoring problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-02-03 06:30 -0800
  Re: refactoring problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-02-03 16:23 +0000
  Re: refactoring problem Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-02-03 12:27 -0400
    Re: refactoring problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-02-03 12:35 -0800
      Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 15:37 -0500
    Re: refactoring problem Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 -0600
      Re: refactoring problem Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-02-03 17:38 -0400
      Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 16:46 -0500
    Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-03 14:36 -0800
  Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 11:34 -0500
  Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:54 -0600
    Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 13:13 -0500
      Re: refactoring problem Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-02-03 10:20 -0800
        Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 13:32 -0500
          Re: refactoring problem Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-02-03 10:50 -0800
            Re: refactoring problem Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-02-03 21:38 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-02-04 08:11 +0000
              Re: refactoring problem Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-02-04 03:56 -0800
      Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 13:21 +0100
        Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 12:35 -0800
          Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 22:15 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 13:49 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 23:51 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 13:53 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 23:48 +0100
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 17:08 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-05 10:07 +0100
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:13 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:20 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:31 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-05 21:42 -0500
            Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-04 18:33 -0500
          Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-04 18:32 -0500
            Re: refactoring problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-02-05 01:50 +0000
          Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-05 10:04 -0600
            Re: refactoring problem Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-02-05 10:38 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-05 13:53 -0600
            Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-05 21:43 -0500
              Re: refactoring problem markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-05 19:15 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-08 23:58 -0500
  Re: refactoring problem Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-02-05 11:09 +0100

csiph-web