Website message overhaul

Jeff Nowakowski jeff at dilacero.org
Tue Nov 15 05:43:41 PST 2011


On 11/14/2011 10:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> Statements and views can be bent in various ways. For example, I think
> it would be tenuous to bill Java as multi-paradigm. Of course you could
> if you really wanted, but you'd go against the grain.

I don't see why C++ is given a pass for "multi-paradigm" and Java isn't. 
Want procedures? Java has static functions. They didn't make primitives 
and arrays proper objects.

Smalltalk is single-paradigm. Haskell is single-paradigm. Nearly every 
popular language embraces multiple paradigms. The dynamic crowd does -- 
Python, Ruby, etc. New languages like Scala do, and I don't see what 
single paradigm Go adheres to that you could call it single-paradigm.

> I think it's simpler than that - to be frank, it's probably the time to
> reckon it's you who is the problem. Almost without exception, you only
> post from an already emotionally loaded, negative frame.

I see. So do I control the what, half-dozen people who all came out 
against multi-paradigm? This being two weeks after my single, short, and 
blunt message against using the word multi-paradigm?

You've got blinders on, and it's not the first time when it's about 
something like a name that you are enamored to and lots of people dislike.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list