Comments on: What Java Did Right http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/what-java-did-right/ Thoughts on Scheme and teaching Scheme Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:27:59 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Magdalena http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/what-java-did-right/#comment-1569 Magdalena Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:13:22 +0000 https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/what-java-did-right/#comment-1569 I believe that Java has a common denominator that most other programming languages do not have. It's far more intuitive to learn for people with a less 'functional' mindset (this does not mean that their minds aren't functioning...). Speaking from personal experience it took me far less time to get to grips with Java than it did with languages such as Prolog, ML or Haskell. Now, I'm aware that the aforementioned languages are better, in the sense that they're more mathematically pure, and in theory once grasped should be easier to program with. The problem is that not everyone has the same mindset and I think Java bridges that gap very well. That's just my 2 cents worth... P.S I liked I believe that Java has a common denominator that most other programming languages do not have. It’s far more intuitive to learn for people with a less ‘functional’ mindset (this does not mean that their minds aren’t functioning…). Speaking from personal experience it took me far less time to get to grips with Java than it did with languages such as Prolog, ML or Haskell. Now, I’m aware that the aforementioned languages are better, in the sense that they’re more mathematically pure, and in theory once grasped should be easier to program with. The problem is that not everyone has the same mindset and I think Java bridges that gap very well. That’s just my 2 cents worth…
P.S I liked

]]> By: inglorion http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/what-java-did-right/#comment-610 inglorion Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:16:57 +0000 https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/what-java-did-right/#comment-610 <q>Now here is the problem: while these features [mandatory type declarations and throws clauses] might be nice for teams we want a language that is friendly to the lone coder, so can a language be easy to use in a team project without saddling us with excessive typing and object orientation?</q> I think so, yes. Types can be inferenced, and the list of exceptions a method can throw can be determined without explicitly declaring it, too. If this is done, you don't have to spend time explicitly declaring things, the information is always up-to-date (no need to go and update a lot of throws clauses when you change a low-level method), and you can still get everything neatly listed when you need to. Now here is the problem: while these features [mandatory type declarations and throws clauses] might be nice for teams we want a language that is friendly to the lone coder, so can a language be easy to use in a team project without saddling us with excessive typing and object orientation?

I think so, yes. Types can be inferenced, and the list of exceptions a method can throw can be determined without explicitly declaring it, too. If this is done, you don’t have to spend time explicitly declaring things, the information is always up-to-date (no need to go and update a lot of throws clauses when you change a low-level method), and you can still get everything neatly listed when you need to.

]]>