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 b
David Mitchell wrote:
> Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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&#
