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.
> >
>
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
