Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.lang.modula3 > #54

Typing, compared with Java

Path csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Mark Carroll <mtbc@ixod.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.modula3
Subject Typing, compared with Java
Date Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:48:57 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 15
Message-ID <86wmxbppfq.fsf@ixod.org> (permalink)
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain
Injection-Info dont-email.me; posting-host="d8dc52bf6e13f239004f50164eccc96e"; logging-data="3342550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Znhhhj6zLnYW0q+K7TPMw"
User-Agent Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock sha1:HN8CND8EnfiQma6aDctiINE0hyE= sha1:4cA5tlC+1tlDgyntff7VynD7IHA=
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.modula3:54

Show key headers only | 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