« First « Previous Comments 64 - 71 of 71 Search these comments
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 64 - 71 of 71 Search these comments
http://singularityhub.com/2014/12/28/future-of-work-part-ii-why-teaching-everyone-to-code-is-delusional/