Richard Golebiowski wrote:20 years ago they were saying that programmers would not be needed soon.
Richard Golebiowski wrote:20 years ago they were saying that programmers would not be needed soon.
Richard Golebiowski wrote:20 years ago they were saying that programmers would not be needed soon.
Pat Farrell wrote:Where is the creativity? Where is the leap in productivity?
Gregg Bolinger wrote:Here's my biggest problem with Java and teaching it to someone new to programming:
David Newton wrote:Nothing you have said addresses anything I said: I never said it wasn't used, I never said it wasn't less complicated than C++ (in fact I said it *was* less complicated), or that it had less scope. I also said it was fast--but it used to be as slow or slower than Smalltalk. I have very specific issues with Java--if you want to address those, okay, but stick to things I actually said.
Oh! i can't accept that .
Depends on what you mean: verbosity is most certainly one type of complexity. The more there is to take in the more cognitive overhead there is. The more the problem is being obscured by the solution the more cognitive overhead there is.
One of Java's greatest weaknesses (to me) is that every solution looks like Java--not like the problem I'm trying to solve. This is somewhat alleviated by static imports, foreach, etc. but remains wrecked by reflection and lack of first-class functions. Workarounds require enough additional code to make the tradeoff questionable.
Deepak Bala wrote:[One could argue that writing many small methods makes the code more verbose.
David Newton wrote:
Deepak Bala wrote:[One could argue that writing many small methods makes the code more verbose.
But it couldn't be argued very well, since the number of moving parts is nearly identical.
Arun Giridharan wrote:Oh! i can't accept that .
Jesper Young wrote:
Java the language is not very complicated at all, and it's much simpler than C++ (which does have a lot of intricate pitfalls). I don't see the need for a language that's "simpler" than Java. If it's not the language itself he's talking about, but the ecosystem around it (with the thousands of libraries and frameworks) - that's what I regard one of the greatest strengths of Java: you can get a library or framework for anything, and you often have choice between multiple implementations.
If Go would ever become popular, then it will grow as well, new language features will be added and lots of people will be writing libraries and frameworks in it, and after a while it will be just as "complex" as Java. I see that I'm not the only one with this idea:
Understanding is Everything - Peter Lord
David Newton wrote:
Arun Giridharan wrote:Oh! i can't accept that .
Accept what? That Java isn't a good language for organic exploration?! If so, you'll need to back that up with something other than simple disagreement, and figure out a way to refute common sense and experience. Java is a *terrible* language for exploration, because it takes too long to explore, and there's too much ceremony. In a language with a REPL people can just *begin*. With Java there's *way* more to it just to get *started*, let alone doing anything useful.
Try this experiment: drop a kid in front of a computer and tell him to start having fun in a Java environment. Now tell him to start having fun with, say, Logo. Now go off and read the studies of using Logo in the classroom and check out what *kids* are doing, then tell me how much luck they'd have doing the same thing in Java. Then perhaps you'll understand what I'm trying to say.
Ever see Why's Ruby-based interactive learning environment? That's just Ruby. In order to even get close with Java you need to go with something like BlueJ, and even that is targeted at high school and college age students. Java is neither designed, nor appropriate, for introductory programming instruction. Nor advanced programming instruction, because you simply cannot *teach* some concepts with it that you can with many other higher-level languages.
Arun Giridharan wrote:IF you have better imagination ..... please let us know ! !
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |