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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #22101

Re: refactoring problem

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:32:28 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 2/4/2013 3:35 PM, 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".
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Even though I think that PL/I and Ada95 may be better examples than C++.
>
I don't know Ada, but I have done a fair amount of work in PL/I (Subset G 
on a Stratus) and some prototyping work with it on an AS/400. IIRC IBM 
designed PL/I to replace all other high level languages but all they 
produced was a dogs breakfast with:
- Fortran/Algol and COBOL style data declarations.
- Procedural statements resulting from a forced marriage between 
  Algol and COBOL.
- A preprocessor stolen from COBOL.
- A perverse and overused exception trapping mechanism, e.g. end of file
  or key not found as well as true exceptions such as field overflows.
  Perverse because there was no try/catch syntax and the exception trap
  didn't have to be anywhere near the statement that caused the exception.

If you think PL/I wasn't my favourite language you're right. I rate it 
slightly above RPG III and a fair way below COBOL and Perl.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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