in reply to How would you fix Java?

Not to fan the flames too much, but if you want to prefer Java over Perl, you must buy into the following paradigms: I believe these are the main axes along which Java differs from Perl. I might have missed one or two.

Any one of these points is a religious argument. Yes, I happen to think the opposite of every one of these. But if you think differently, feel free to use Java in its current form. I won't mind. (I'll still get more done at the end of the day than you do, but that's another story. {grin})

It's not a matter of "fixing" Java, as the thread implies. I think "to each his own". Java is optimized to support the paradigms listed above. And that's perfectly within the right of the developers.

I've shared a panel with James Gosling a few years back, and got to have lunch with him mid-day. He's a nice, well-intentioned guy. (Well, I think writing an Emacs program messed him up for life, but that's another story.) He's created a language that meets his goals, and apparently also strikes a chord in a lot of others. Sound familiar?

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: •Re: How would you fix Java?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 21, 2003 at 15:17 UTC
    but if you want to prefer Java over Perl, you must buy into the following paradigms:
    ...
    Objects are universally better than non-objects

    I'll disagree with this one. I'd say that in Java you're required to use objects, but that does not mean you're required to like them better. For some the requirement is completely acceptable, others it's a small tradeoff, and others it's a major annoyance. However, you do not have to agree with every design issue to use a language. What you're saying is tantamount to saying that anyone who uses python has to like whitespace restrictions, which I know is false :)

    Well, I think writing an Emacs program messed him up for life

    Wouldn't you be? I know I would ;-)

[reply]
      I don't know where you read "like". I didn't say you had to like these preferences, just that you buy into them. I don't like the notion of paying taxes, but I understand its purpose, and buy into it.

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
      Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

[reply]

        Take your choice:

        • s/like/approve of/
        • s/like/buy into/
        • s/like/enjoy using/

        I thought the point was very obvious. Perhaps I should clarify again. You said:

        but if you want to prefer Java over Perl, you must buy into the following paradigms:
        ...
        Objects are universally better than non-objects

        My point is that you do not have to "buy into" the idea that "objects are universally better than non-objects." In fact, you could think that they are exactly identical in every aspect. This would not eliminate all reasons for using Java. Hence, you do not need to "buy into" the idea.

[reply]

In Section Meditations