«

Jim Gibson wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> "Preference" != "taste".
>
> You are splitting hairs.

Not at all.

> From my online dictionary (copyright, Apple, Inc.):
> taste:
> "a person's tendency to like and dislike certain things"
>
> preference:
> "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others"

I meant "preference" in the sense of "showing a greater cost-benefit ratio on the basis
of evidence than other alternatives", not "touchy-feely random psychological bias".

You're the one splitting hairs. My point is that it isn't a matter of esthetics, as "taste"
is usually understood to denote, but of rational assessment of alternatives, a point you
choose to overlook in your determination to be a troll.

--
Lew

On 2/5/2013 4:31 PM, Lew wrote:
> Jim Gibson wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> "Preference" != "taste".
>>
>> You are splitting hairs.
>
> Not at all.
>
>> From my online dictionary (copyright, Apple, Inc.):
>> taste:
>> "a person's tendency to like and dislike certain things"
>>
>> preference:
>> "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others"
>
> I meant "preference" in the sense of "showing a greater cost-benefit ratio on the basis
> of evidence than other alternatives", not "touchy-feely random psychological bias".

I don't think I have ever seen a cost-benefit analysis for
a suggested change to the Java language.

Do you have a link to one?

Arne

On 2/5/2013 11:04 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Silvio wrote:
>>> parameters. Nothing very dramatic that could not be added to the
>>> Java compiler if so desired.
>>
>> People are never satisfied. They wanted delegates, didn't get them,
>> never mind Java got another way to do the same thing. Then they
>> wanted generics, and sorta got them. Then they wanted runtime
>> generics and didn't get them, never mind Java already had another way
>> to do the same thing. Then they wanted closures, and sorta got them,
>> never mind Java already had another way to do the same thing. Now
>> they want tuples, never mind that Java already has another way to do
>> the same thing.
>>
>> "Oh, it's just one more little thing!" they always exclaim. For a
>> thousand little things.
>>
>> This is what happened to C++.
>>
>> Java will get all these things and the programming community will
>> abandon the language, bitching that it's gotten too "heavy".
>
> For what it's worth, I would say the biggest mistake that Java made was
> in the exclusion of unsigned integer types, or, most perniciously, the
> decision to make the byte datatype be signed.

I hate that as well.

> That doesn't necessarily
> mean I would want to see it changed at this point, however.

ulong/uint/ushort/ubyte would actually not be that intrusive.

Arne

On 2/5/2013 6:43 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 2/5/2013 11:04 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I would say the biggest mistake that Java made was
>> in the exclusion of unsigned integer types, or, most perniciously, the
>> decision to make the byte datatype be signed.

>
> I hate that as well.
>

>> That doesn't necessarily
>> mean I would want to see it changed at this point, however.

>
> ulong/uint/ushort/ubyte would actually not be that intrusive.


For what it's worth:

<https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/unsigned_api>

On 2/5/2013 10:15 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 6:43 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2013 11:04 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I would say the biggest mistake that Java made was
>>> in the exclusion of unsigned integer types, or, most perniciously, the
>>> decision to make the byte datatype be signed.
>
>>
>> I hate that as well.
>>
>
>>> That doesn't necessarily
>>> mean I would want to see it changed at this point, however.
>
>>
>> ulong/uint/ushort/ubyte would actually not be that intrusive.
>
>
> For what it's worth:
>
> <https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/unsigned_api>

Interesting. Thanks.

Arne