J. David Blackstone wrote:
> Yeah, that was one of my disappointments when I finally made the
> Java plunge last month. I kind of expected integers to be objects in
> what I had heard was the "perfect, pure" OO language.
Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
"32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over an array of anything. The
price we pay is incredibly expensive.
- Ken
P.S. I may be wrong, but trying to learn what jwz doesn't like about
Java and then figure out how to "fix" it in Perl is an impossible task.
He's got wonderful, interesting, thoughtful opinions -- they just seem
contrary to Perl's basic existence.
Here's a chat I quickly found on Google. I don't know if it's true, but
it's certainly consistent with everything I've heard/read jwz say about
languages:
jwz: I think java has enough of the lisp nature to satisfy me, even
though it's not a purely functional language
jwz: I expect that we're going to be stuck with algol-syntax languages
for a long long time, because there's too much invested in them
already
jwz: but really that doesn't matter, because the surface syntax of
languages is really trivia
jwz: for the record, I despise C++ and perl
jwz: though I use perl, because it does make things easier in the
current environment
jwz: C++ just makes everything harder and worse, so I won't use it at
all.
Notice that he likes Lisp, which has strongly influenced Perl -- much
more so than Java. The main problems from jwz's perspective I'm sure
would be control (giving up some of those 224 bits in an integer) and
syntax (he doesn't like Algol and Perl is Algol with $@%).
