in reply to •Re: How would you fix Java?
in thread How would you fix Java?

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 ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
•Re: Re: •Re: How would you fix Java?
by merlyn (Sage) on Apr 21, 2003 at 16:42 UTC
    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