Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.modula3 > #54

Typing, compared with Java

Show all headers | View raw

I happened to be thinking back to how the Java 1.0 spec disappointed me
in seeming a bit like a C++-syntax Modula-3 where the AWT 1.0 event
model hadn't learned anything from Trestle and we didn't have generics,
we didn't even (yet) have basics like TYPECASE. I got to wondering about
Java's later improvements, especially generics and how Modula-3's typing
compares, where we have partial revelations, etc. in Modula-3 but Java
has interfaces, super, extends. Does anyone who is thinking through the
type theory better than I have any thoughts as to how the two approaches
differ? I don't know if one might be thought clearly better than the
other, if they're just differently suited, or even somehow equivalently
expressive. I found Modula-3's more intuitive and, at the time, it did
everything I wanted but that might just be subjective, perhaps there are
more objective reasons to prefer one over the other?

-- Mark

Back to comp.lang.modula3 | Previous | Find similar

Thread

Typing, compared with Java Mark Carroll <mtbc@ixod.org> - 2023-08-31 08:48 +0000

csiph-web