«

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200, Robert Klemme
<> wrote:

>On 17.09.2012 05:07, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> My point was not that it can't be made "safe". I rather questioned
>>> whether the additional complexity introduced in the language would be
>>> beneficial (even if we let compatibility issues aside for the moment).
>>
>> The architecture astronauts got Java long ago.
>>
>> While C has many trade-offs that I disagree with, one thing that
>> they got right is that it is a small language.
>
>But "small" is not a value in itself. Programming languages are tools
>and a small language might have less complexity than necessary to solve
>today's problems. If you can learn it fast (because it is small) but
>then you need to go through hoops every day to write the code that you
>need to write, what have you gained?

If.

One can drown in huge languages. Features can interact in
"interesting" ways.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 17.09.2012 05:07, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <> wrote:

>> [snip]

>>> My point was not that it can't be made "safe". I rather questioned
>>> whether the additional complexity introduced in the language would be
>>> beneficial (even if we let compatibility issues aside for the moment).
>> The architecture astronauts got Java long ago.

>> While C has many trade-offs that I disagree with, one thing that
>> they got right is that it is a small language.
> But "small" is not a value in itself. Programming languages are tools
> and a small language might have less complexity than necessary to solve
> today's problems. If you can learn it fast (because it is small) but
> then you need to go through hoops every day to write the code that you
> need to write, what have you gained?

I would even question whether a small language is actually less complex or
easier to learn. If I need to write five pages of code to read a text file,
because the language is so small it doesn't have existing mechanisms for
common tasks, then that incurs a high cost in learning and complexity to
apply the small language.

Just because you learn a languages syntax and keywords doesn't mean you
really learned the language. Languages are there to solve problems, so you
really only 'learned' a language when you can solve problems with it.

Liebe Gruesse,
Joerg

--
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.

Joerg Meier wrote:
> I would even question whether a small language is actually less complex or
> easier to learn. If I need to write five pages of code to read a text file,
> because the language is so small it doesn't have existing mechanisms for
> common tasks, then that incurs a high cost in learning and complexity to
> apply the small language.

The point is true in general but doesn't apply to Java specifically.

> Just because you learn a languages syntax and keywords doesn't mean you
> really learned the language. Languages are there to solve problems, so you
> really only 'learned' a language when you can solve problems with it.

And any sufficiently powerful language will require continuous learning and
relearning.

Learning a programming language and learning to program are a continuum of
mastery, similar to any craft. You might learn Java, for example, well enough to
solve certain single-user, desktop application scenarios and be quite helpless in
the face of a Tomcat app and installation.

I acknowledge that I never learn what I'm doing 100%.

--
Lew

On 17.09.2012 18:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 17.09.2012 05:07, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0200, Robert Klemme
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> My point was not that it can't be made "safe". I rather questioned
>>>> whether the additional complexity introduced in the language would be
>>>> beneficial (even if we let compatibility issues aside for the moment).
>>>
>>> The architecture astronauts got Java long ago.
>>>
>>> While C has many trade-offs that I disagree with, one thing that
>>> they got right is that it is a small language.
>>
>> But "small" is not a value in itself. Programming languages are tools
>> and a small language might have less complexity than necessary to solve
>> today's problems. If you can learn it fast (because it is small) but
>> then you need to go through hoops every day to write the code that you
>> need to write, what have you gained?
>
> If.
>
> One can drown in huge languages. Features can interact in
> "interesting" ways.

Yes, of course. But the "if" applies the other way round. As I said:
small or large in itself are no values.

Cheers

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

On 17.09.2012 09:39, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> Robert Klemme <> wrote:
>>
>> My point was not that it can't be made "safe". I rather questioned
>> whether the additional complexity introduced in the language would be
>> beneficial (even if we let compatibility issues aside for the moment).
>
> I don't think there is any additional complexity -- it's just a
> different expression of the complexity that today is expressed through
> the Throwable hierarchy.

No, there is more complexity: you have the class hierarchy and
_additionally_ you define at throwing site how the exception needs to be
handled. With the current language design that distinction is bound to
the exception type while the suggested approach allows to vary handling
per exception type; hence there are more degrees of freedom and
consequently more complexity.

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:00:12 +0200, Robert Klemme
<> wrote:

>On 17.09.2012 18:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:41:11 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <> wrote:

[snip]

>> If.
>>
>> One can drown in huge languages. Features can interact in
>> "interesting" ways.
>
>Yes, of course. But the "if" applies the other way round. As I said:
>small or large in itself are no values.

Actually, they are. "elegant" refers to simplicity of form
accomplishing something. This is a case of "Small is beautiful." And
"bloat" is the term we use for the opposite.

Given the choice between a large programming language and a small
one, all other things equal, I will go for the smaller one.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko