Tweet
And I learned on 1.4.2, so I'm fully aware of the evolution. I disagree with your characterization of why C# is better than Java; I think it's almost entirely that Java pioneered a lot of this stuff, understandably made mistakes, and then couldn't properly fix them because they were embedded in the VM. Stuff like type erasure was necessary for backwards compatibility. Of course, that doesn't make it suck any less.
-
-
Back when I did most of my Java programming it was 1.4...I've been doing it the oldschool way out of force of habit I guess.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Also, lambda expressions in C#. And accordingly, LINQ.
Just the most badass language ever, C#.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
I don't think Java even pioneered a lot of this stuff. Java was essentially a very restricted version of C++ designed to run against a VM. It wasn't the first there either, plenty of runtimes used bytecode interpretation before Java.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
In the sense of being "popular", then I guess you could say it pioneered the concept by making it feasible and widespread. But there's many problems with Java that were simple to fix that they just never did. The reasons are numerous: James Gosling is a stubborn ****ing man (I've met him on two occasions now) who has a vendetta against MS for C#, so anything C# does he automatically was against doing out of principle...), they wanted to preserve backwards compatibility at the expense of restricting the utility of new versions of the language (a mistake MS did not make -- there's two versions of the .NET runtime...), and it simply had some...stupid...design decisions.
Even today, half of the Java community is vehemently against lambda expressions and closures being added to the language. The pressure bumped it from being included in Java 7. It's just a ****ing bizarre community..."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Ehr, gcc3 was a pain but gcc4 is pretty good - that is after the cleanup.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Everything has been done before. Java was the first to get the amount of exposure necessary to find these design flaws.
And the problem "design a properly restricted subset of some extremely expressive language" is actually pretty challenging...Comment
-
I don't think it is.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
You take C++, cut out direct memory management, cut out operator overloading, cut out multiple inheritance (and add the concept of "interface" as a concession), and you have the basics..."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
And yet there are so many nice little things that doesn't get you, like generic inference, autoboxing (actually, does c++ let you overload casts? that would do it), lambdas, closures...Comment
-
Yet it still can't ****ing figure out that std::Map<boost::shared_ptr<int>,boost::shared_ptr<int>> blah; isn't a bit-shift operation. That code fails to compile in gcc4 every ****ing time, even though it's both standards compliant and obvious by the context. It works fine in IBM C++, Intel C++, and MSVC++.Originally posted by BlackCat View Post"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Java doesn't have generic inference til Java 7, and it doesn't have lambdas or closures. Autoboxing didn't come along til like 10 years after the language first came out, too...
And of course you can overload typecasts in C++."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Java has had closures since 1997.Comment
-
No. I'm not sure you understand what closures are.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Closures are being debated for inclusion in Java 8 sometime in "2012"."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Sorry, but this is a "you're just wrong" moment. Anonymous inner classes are closed over final variables in scope. It's actually not even that awkward.Comment
-
Is this you saying you were wrong, or you're saying I'm wrong?Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Because, to be clear, Java does not support Closures by you can approximate Closures..."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
You, obviously.Comment
-
Don't say boost - that piece of crap is in some ways good and in so many other ways bad 
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
Comment