[OT] Why don't you advertise more your language on Quora etc ?

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d]

On 03/06/2017 07:47 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 05:26:08PM +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> Oh for the days when the only error message you ever got was 0c4.

You can get similar experiences even in modern times in the embedded 
area (at least hobbyist anyway, I guess there is all that JTAG stuff). I 
remember doing some demos on a late prototype Propeller MC, and there 
were times all I had for debugging was a single solitary LED. To this 
day, I still can't decide whether that was fun or horrible. I must've 
have a bit of masochist in me :P

>> The zealotry,
>> when present, is more about the JVM than Java per se.
>
> Perhaps my perception is colored by a close acquiantance who happens to
> be a Java zealot to this very day. :-P  JVM zealotry, OTOH, I don't see
> very much at all. In fact, I've never even heard such a term until you
> said it.

I learned the true meaning of Java zealotry ten or so years ago, when 
talking to a co-worker (our resident Java-fan - 'course, this was a VB6 
house so I can't entirely blame him for Java fandom) and I made some 
remark involving checked exceptions (which, at the time, were already 
widely considered problematic, or even a mistake, even within the Java 
world). I was stunned to see a quizzical expression on his face and then 
learn he was genuinely puzzled by the mere suggestion of Java's checked 
exceptions having any downside.

Luckily, this does seem much less common that it was at the time.

> The thing that gets to me is that these teachers, good or bad, committed
> the fallacy of embracing a single paradigm to the exclusion of
> everything else, even in the face of obvious cases where said paradigm
> didn't fit very well with the problem domain.  Some aspects of Java also
> reflect this same fallacy -- such as those ubiquitous singleton static
> classes in the OS-wrapping modules, or the impossibility of declaring a
> function outside of a class -- which to me are indications that it
> wasn't just the teachers, but a more pervasive trend in the Java
> ecosystem of putting on OO-centric blinders.

Yes, this. Although, granted, the OO-koolaid *was* quite strong indeed 
in those days.

It really is strange to look back on all that, when I was fairly sold on 
OO too (just not quite as fanatically so), and compare to now:

At this point I feel that class-based polymorphism mostly just turned 
out to be an awkward work-around for the lack of first-class functions 
and closures in mainstream languages. What convinced me: After years of 
using D, I find myself using OO less and less (OO polymorphism nearly 
never, aside from exception hierarchies), and instead of feeling 
hamstringed I feel liberated - and I'm normally a kitchen-sink kinda guy!