And not being able to do "terse things" is exactly what turns other people off to Java. Not just Perl programmers, either, but a lot of C++ diehards.

Have you looked at .Net source? There's not a lot of difference between the two languages. In fact if you really examine the changes in Java 1.5 you can see where it's incorporating much of .Net's functionality. No matter how you dice it, the majority of large scale application development will not be "terse".

"large scale application development will not be terse".

They are not terse because that is the way they are written. They are large because they are large. They could be small. They could be medium sized. Consider the Tau.

A lot of enterpise apps could be simplified by reducing them to datastructures and event handlers, but they tend to sprawl. They have multiple interfaces where they could add multiplexors to simplify things. All things can be simplified with time, and "large scale" doesn't mean "scaleable", "powerful", or "advanced", or even "feature rich" -- it just means "large scale". Consider the Tau.

I was going to let this branch die, but after trying to consider The Tau and looking at your over simplification of the problem at hand I couldn't help myself.

In order for programming to progress to the next natural level ( i.e programs writing programs for programs ) rather than simply getting bogged down with delivery systems, content management, and business logic, the code itself must be capable of encapsulation in order to managage the complex relationships that need to exist. Datastructures and event handlers are wonderfull from a programers mindset, but from the perspective of technological advancement they are impediments to the larger problems and abstractions. (i.e. Getting computers to solve real world problems ) Scalable doesn't just relate to the number of users that can access a system, but also to the ability to handle fast change at any level of the problem domain with the least impact to process and product.

If it we're simply about size for the sake of size OO itself is discounted as a viable option. Do you really think the folks at Sun got up one day, smoked a dubie and said, "Whoa Dude.. Lets right a really complicated fat language that seems intense... cuz if its fat and complicated everybody will think its cool man... we'll make sooo much cash man"

?

coreolyn

The language is evolving. But you still need to deal with classes and types. That turns off people who want to not write business oriented stuff, but algorithms, i.e. matrix transforms.

Play that funky music white boy..

Bingo! I took tons of math/science/engineering classes, I like art & music, I like strategy and planning. But odds down, I want to be creative and I want to crunch bits and make things happen. I want to entire machine at my disposal, efficient, fast, powerful, no limits.

For those "business" (meaning mindset not just business apps) type coders, java probably does make sense. Everything has a file, everything in it's place, rigid regulation, can't do anything if someone said it wasn't ok to do that. Doing something creative (like breaking way into new algorithms) is dangerous -- you should just use the tools available or have someone write a tool. Discipline enforced from day one, not self-checked. It's just like Corporate America.

I think the fundamentals here (and some folks can bridge the two decently), is that the tools are written for two different brain types. Which is probably why I am replying to this thread so much. Anyhow, I need to stop :)