OT: What's wrong with Java-the-language

[Julio César Carrascal Urquijo]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> I agree that C# is probably a better-designed language (to a rather small
> extent) than Java, but I think the reason is "hindsight is 20/20". C# aimed   > basically to be a better version of Java, since the paradigms and 
ideas work
> well for large corporate codebases, and to that extent it worked. I've done 
> very little C# coding, but I do remember appreciating closures (it's a shame 
 > D doesn't have them), and I never shed a tear for checked exceptions.

Off course is strange to call Java a bad example of language design in 
favor of C# but you should note that the reasons I gave (Namely boxing, 
generics and enums) *where developed first on C#* and then bolted on top 
of Java. The hindsight argument doesn't apply to these three reasons.

The problem I'm trying to point is that Java-the-language was pretty 
much dormant since 1995 and then they added these *features* at the same 
time in Java 1.5 in response to C# 2.0. These leaky abstraction all have 
broken behavior that they now have to support for, who know how many years.

That's what I call bad language design.


> Of course, I'm a huge Smalltalk fan, and only actually worked to any great 
> extent (more than a few smaller projects) in Java and Perl (the latter of 
> which has scarred me permanently), so I may be a bit biased. In fact, even 
> when I look at D, I'm looking at it from the perspective of a highly OO 
> programming style.

I'm still learning Smalltalk (Squeak). I'm at the point where I can 
understand what a piece of code does but still don't get what is that I 
gain by writing code in this style. Any pointers to obtain the Zen 
experience? :D


-- 
Julio César Carrascal Urquijo
http://www.artelogico.com/