« First « Previous Comments 61 - 71 of 71 Search these comments
How so? All Scala adds to multiple inheritance is an ordering of the preferred method calls for conflicting methods. I hardly call that a different philosophy.
In any case, I think we're about to get into a nomenclature argument, so let's not.
Java only allows multiple interfaces with no data or methods. Scala allows at least limited multiple inheritance with methods.
But yes, let's not argue over nomenclature. :-)
I don't get the semantics over type safe, and readability.
Either you understand that language syntax and can follow the code or you can't. The worst thing people do is comment and especially over comment, if you can't read the code either you did or inherited. Then you're not worth a shit at what you're doing, or the folks that you inherited the code form aren't worth a crap.
Now of course, my niche is in enterprise development. If I were doing stuff like creating an original game engine, graphics or sound format, or low level hardware development. Then my thoughts on that would all be different. 90% of the enterprise development done is an unnecessary dog and pony show, to keep up the illusion that any real Computer programming is actually going on.
Especially the commenting. If I have to comment a method called, get_customer_monthly_invoices, then somebody is really really worried about their goddamned job security.
Java didn't have reflection back in 1995.
Reflection was in Java 1.1. It was simply refined and improved through the versions.
My mistake. I must have been thinking of generics. Serves me right going on memory at my age.
Yeah, reflection was added in 1.1 in 1997.
My mistake. I must have been thinking of generics. Serves me right going on memory at my age.
No worries. :-)
Breaking backward compatibility is good for the art but bad for business.
Transitioning from Java to Scala would be even more of a challenge for business than transitioning to a version of Java that requires some code changes and a new class format. That's why I'd rather take the best of Scala and put it in Java.
Besides, Java already competes with .NET. Adding another competitor will just fragment the market further making it harder for developers to cooperate. We don't need many platforms, just a few or even one really good one.
Transitioning from Java to Scala would be even more of a challenge for business than transitioning to a version of Java that requires some code changes and a new class format. That's why I'd rather take the best of Scala and put it in Java.
True. However, Java and Scala can coexist peacefully on the JVM platform.
Judging from how long it took Java to incorporate lambda expressions I am not going to hold my breadth.
Besides, Java already competes with .NET. Adding another competitor will just fragment the market further making it harder for developers to cooperate. We don't need many platforms, just a few or even one really good one.
Even .NET has many languages (VB, C#, F#, etc). One more JVM language will not hurt. Both .NET and Java must compete with Ruby, Python, and JavaScript (especially node.js).
JavaScript is an interesting language. It tends to attract the best and the worst programmers.
Judging from how long it took Java to incorporate lambda expressions I am not going to hold my breadth.
It's a shame Oracle bought out Sun Microsystems. I was worried Java would slowly die because of that.
JavaScript is an interesting language. It tends to attract the best and the worst programmers.
JavaScript is unavoidable today. But you can develop correctly in it. You just have to ignore most of the language and stick with good design and implementation patterns.
By the way, JavaScript has nothing to do with Java. It's name comes from a marketing ploy. It was originally called LiveScript.
I wouldn't say .NET and Java compete with JavaScript. The later is used for client-side code in browsers. The former are used in server-side code and applications.
Even .NET has many languages (VB, C#, F#, etc).
And pointlessly so. I'd get rid of all but C#. But I don't want to get into a religious discussion...
JavaScript is unavoidable today. But you can develop correctly in it. You just have to ignore most of the language and stick with good design and implementation patterns.
Yep. It is a highly flexible language with a few oddities.
I wouldn't say .NET and Java compete with JavaScript. The later is used for client-side code in browsers. The former are used in server-side code and applications.
Node.js is all the rage right now. It is a server-side technology.
I hope Dart will replace JavaScript soon.
And pointlessly so. I'd get rid of all but C#. But I don't want to get into a religious discussion...
Nothing religious... but you may want to take a look at F#. Its closest cousin is probably OCaml. It has one of the best type systems as a mainstream-ish language.
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=27496
Businesses are investing more dollars in mobile and big data initiatives, and they need skilled technology and creative professionals to support these efforts
I love this word, "creative".
So a bunch of idiot MBA-ologist managers are suppose to figure out whose a "creative" hire?
Seriously, do ppl really believe this tripe?!
« First « Previous Comments 61 - 71 of 71 Search these comments
http://singularityhub.com/2014/12/28/future-of-work-part-ii-why-teaching-everyone-to-code-is-delusional/