religious programming

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

You got good points.
Java is indeed a very simple and safe language. But it's a straitjacket.
Java is filled with techniques, developed as workarounds to compensate
for the lack of other paradigms.
All the arguments about ease of collaborative development comes from
developers' unwillingness to learn and pay attention.
At this rate the entire software industry could be build on the idea
that no-one wants to work properly.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 11.10.2011, 11:57 Uhr, schrieb Gor Gyolchanyan
> <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com>:
>
>> I don't know how to cure the people's minds from this religious
>> plague, that poisons the software development industry.
>>
>> Can anyone help me out in this quest of enlightening people?
>
> So you want to convert the barbarians? Then you must accept, that you
> yourself are a religious person about multi-paradigm programming. Yes the
> devil lies within everyone of us. I have been writing code in Java and it is
> OOP exclusively. The point is, that companies want a language that does
> things one way. It is easy to share code this way and to train programmers
> in that language. There is no "oh what is that construct doing?" in Java
> because the language is primitive and pretty verbose. It is also easier for
> me to only have a few concepts in my head when I write code. Maybe it is
> also the way I'm wired. Everything is an object the has to do X and works
> together with Y and Z is a concept that I can easily apply to almost
> everything.
>
> If these C++ programmers you talk about like the restrictive use of language
> features, then you should respect that. They may have had a hard in the past
> with people writing code like Picasso. I mean, good code that uses features
> that were difficult for others to understand at first. If you don't
> understand other people's code you are likely to introduce bugs. As long as
> they aren't open to what really makes them stick to their style rules and
> language it is hard to say what would make them consider D. After all the
> pitfalls in D will be more confusing to them coming from C++ than any C++
> code could ever be.
>
> Maybe they like the integrated unit tests. I've heard people are more likely
> to actually write them if they are integrated like that. Or at some point
> they say "if I could just define what the object state must be after this
> public method exits I wouldn't have this bug now!" and contracts come into
> play. Anyway, don't put C++ down unless they are open to speak about what
> they wish for and are willing to accept new ideas.
>