Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:41:07 -0700
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <jmv64v$eee$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <jmq71h$su0$1@speranza.aioe.org> <cpl2p7h932qjsmgm4cn08cbhg7k9etu654@4ax.com> <qun869-glb.ln1@bernd.nawothnig.dialin.t-online.de> <jmuldc$a5h$1@news.albasani.net> <jmv3e5$84k$2@news.albasani.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net eAy2dSUkyhvmNJfHNOly/yZoXWAxQqn26fXZb+MfZVVbi+7DDL7qUZeuwdd3Rt7n4ob7OTnz5I8YSSVLko/oOQ==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:43:12 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="djAiKO0vrN67pUveo9j1dyi+1u+8jDB20e/8KT2QrIzTZeiF+WJULcBiFXRKdOkRPYLA8heuZYzVTwdb1sWhk0yI6SilT164s5ZODc7NKgjtYkrWnrAM5RcjEEXDdYO/"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
In-Reply-To: <jmv3e5$84k$2@news.albasani.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+tZBlSqW3P8AgIwL7jhQUAVIYn4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13757

On 4/21/2012 12:56 PM, Lew wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> Bernd Nawothnig wrote:
>>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>>> Nasser M. Abbasi wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>>> "Unified type system (JDK 10+)
>>>>> No more primitives, make everything objects"
>>>>
>>>> This is the way Eiffel works,
>>>
>>> The same for Python.
>>>
>>
>> ironically, in my case I went differently:
>
> How exactly is that ironic?
>

because not everything goes in the same direction, sometimes things go 
in different directions.


for example:
language A has primitives as a subtype of Class/Instance Objects;
language B has Class/Instance Objects a subtype of primitives and 
value-types.

the irony is that a difference in organization of this sort (related to 
a type-ontology) goes against the basic assumptions of such an ontology 
(that there is a hierarchical relationship between the types in question).

or such...