Website message overhaul

[Walter Bright]

On 11/19/2011 5:53 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> Primitives are not objects, and arrays are specialized objects with language
> support. Java also supports procedural programming with static methods. It also
> supports checking reference equality with ==, which is not OO at all. If all you
> wanted to do was treat Java as a procedural language, you could. You'd pay an
> object tax on memory, but other than that, the procedural style is very easy to do.

I don't agree. You cannot have any data structures in Java that are not OOP. 
You've really got to stretch to call Java multiparadigm.


> All these OO escape hatches were built into the language intentionally, quite
> unlike Smalltalk. Besides all this, Java is going to be the weakest language to
> pick on for "multi-paradigm". Many other languages in today's programming
> landscape offer more variety.

Haskell, Ruby, Python don't, for example.


> If you want to argue that D is special, then argue about it's support for
> functional purity. Even Scala doesn't have that. Just don't get into the
> quagmire of saying that Scala isn't multi-paradigm because it isn't /really/
> functional.

I'll argue in this n.g. that Scala isn't functional, but I don't intend to do so 
on the web site or write any articles about Scala.


> And I still say you should avoid the use of "multi-paradigm",
> because it sounds like a stupid buzzword.

It's misused a lot, to be sure. But we are using it correctly. D really is 
multi-paradigm. There is no stretching of the term to make it fit.