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