D vs Go in real life

[Chris]

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:40:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:36:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:31:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 14:43:11 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 14:11:50 UTC, bearophile 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> E.g. one day D might implement features that have to do 
>>>>>> with what Facebook needs more than features that 
>>>>>> programmers need in general. So a module 
>>>>>> std.webshite.upload.latest.picture gets all the attention 
>>>>>> while std.reallyhandy is being neglected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know one or two cases where this phenomenon has 
>>>>> happened to a language?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye,
>>>>> bearophile
>>>>
>>>> Good question! To be honest I cannot put my finger on any 
>>>> module of any language in particular. Maybe Objective-C 
>>>> would be an example where sometimes things would advance at 
>>>> breakneck pace in Cocoa, while some handy features in the 
>>>> standard Objective-C library (e.g. in NSString) would still 
>>>> be missing (but that's years ago now, I haven't used it for 
>>>> a while, so I dunno how it has developed).
>>>>
>>>> Java is a good example of how (corporate) ideology (and 
>>>> management) ruins things. Everything is a class, if you 
>>>> don't want this, you create a class and declare static 
>>>> functions to turn off OOP.
>>>
>>> You know that this comes from the original concept of what 
>>> OOP is all about and Smalltalk, right?
>>>
>>> There are no free functions in pure OO languages, like there 
>>> are no objects in pure FP languages.
>>>
>>> Of course, meanwhile we have learned there are other ways to 
>>> do OO, but don't blame Java for Smalltalk concepts.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paulo
>>
>> I don't blame Java for Smalltalk. I just don't like 
>> ideological constraints. As you said, we've learned that there 
>> are other ways of doing OO, but how can people cling to things 
>> when they know they are not good. I can't get my head around 
>> it. Same goes for JVM. If you have JIT, why not go all the way 
>> and have the _option_ to compile it to machine code?
>
> Just get Aonix, J9, RoboVM, JET, Jasmine, JikesRVM, just to 
> cite a few examples.
>
> There are plenty AOT compilers to chose from for Java.
>
> Oracle JVM is not the only JDK around, although people tend to 
> think so.
>
> --
> Paulo

Which kind of proves my point. There is demand for it. Why not 
ship Java with a machine code compiler? javac -native MyClass.java