On 18 April 2016 at 09:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Tim Delaney
> wrote:
> > I also wouldn't describe Java as a
> > "perfectly good language" - it is at best a compromise language that just
> > happened to be heavily promoted and accepted at the right time.
> >
>
Gregory Ewing :
> It's understandable that Java didn't originally have a typedef,
> because all types had short enough names anyway. But generics changed
> that in a big way, and it baffles me that some form of typedef wasn't
> added soon afterwards.
Java's opposition to typedef seems to be somet
On 17 April 2016 at 23:38, Ian Kelly wrote:
The diamond operator in JDK 7 makes this a lot more tolerable, IMO:
The diamond notation helps slightly, but not very much.
What would help a lot more would be something like C's
typedef for giving aliases to type expressions.
It's understandable t
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Tim Delaney
> wrote:
>> I also wouldn't describe Java as a
>> "perfectly good language" - it is at best a compromise language that just
>> happened to be heavily promoted and accepted at the right time.
>>
>> Python is *much* closer to my
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:30 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> "Java" was originally four related, but separate, concepts: a source
>> language, a bytecode, a sandboxing system, and one other that I can't
>> now remember.
>
> The virtual machine
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:30 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> "Java" was originally four related, but separate, concepts: a source
> language, a bytecode, a sandboxing system, and one other that I can't
> now remember.
The virtual machine? Or is that what you mean by bytecode?
The Java Virtual Machine
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Tim Delaney
wrote:
> I also wouldn't describe Java as a
> "perfectly good language" - it is at best a compromise language that just
> happened to be heavily promoted and accepted at the right time.
>
> Python is *much* closer to my idea of a perfectly good language
On 17 April 2016 at 23:38, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Java generics ruined a perfectly good language. I mean:
>
> The diamond operator in JDK 7 makes this a lot more tolerable, IMO:
>
> Map> customersOfAccountManager =
> new HashMap<>();
>
To some extent - you can't use the diamond operat
