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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9799

Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/3/2011 5:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 11:10 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 3:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 1:22 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>> no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very
>>>> well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI
>>>> mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed
>>>> Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific
>>>> features or 3rd party tools).
>>>
>>> Native does not match well with the WORA goal.
>>>
>>> If you really need to mix with native, then there are most likely
>>> better languages than Java.
>>>
>>
>> coupling policy with language design is IMO bad in general.
>>
>> a language should ideally allow WORA or allow not using WORA, at the
>> free choice of the developer, rather than having it forced on them by
>> the particular language (or the design philosophy of said language).
>>
>> this way, one can use full OS features, say, on a desktop PC, but have
>> it still run on a small embedded device, as the features will simply
>> "magically disable" when the code runs on a target where they don't 
>> exist.
>>
>> this would be much better than the present situation, which is more
>> either "don't use any system-specific features" or "be willing to run
>> into a brick wall if feature X is not available".
>
> I disagree.
>
> I don't believe in the "on language that is good at everything"
> philosophy.
>
> I believe in multiple languages for different purposes.
>

fair enough...

doesn't mean it is ideal to couple policy with language though, as 
policy is a separate matter from utility:
one is philosophical, the other practical.

for a language to be regarded as general-purpose, but to inhibit certain 
uses as contrary to philosophy, is IMO disagreeable.

it would IMO be better treated as a matter of a technical deficiency.
typically though, people will try to address deficiencies, but people 
often make little effort to address problems with policy or philosophy.

so, it is an issue...


it would be much like if one went and (somehow) put a bunch of religious 
references into the design of a language (and lots of evangelizing in 
the documentation), and then assert that the language was not intended 
to be used by non-believers. some others might (probably rightly) regard 
such a policy as silly/stupid.


personally, I don't believe WORA and having a non-terrible FFI are 
mutually opposed, but is rather a technical matter to be addressed (how 
to effectively glue against other languages without compromising 
portability, ...).

whether or not people use a feature, or how they use it, is then their 
issue.

granted, this doesn't mean I am opposed to the use of lint tools or 
security mechanisms as a means to enforce policy, but this is a separate 
matter (security then as a deliberate means to disallow a particular 
action, rather than as a design limitation).

an example would be if, albeit the language has a strong FFI, maybe only 
certain code would be allowed to use it (code which violates security 
policies then being rejected as such).

simply having a poor FFI though accomplishes neither goal.


or such...

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

Thread

Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

csiph-web