>> If anyone has a solution to stupid, ignorant voters coupled with evil politicians, I'd like to hear it, cuz I'm out of ideas.
Well, the time-honored "solution" is to just cut the voters out of the loop and proceed directly to tyranny.
Some Slashdotters might trot out BS like technocracy, but fundamentally any system that excludes the population from participating in decision-making is indistinguishable from tyrrany (in the way a coffee cup is topologically indistinguishable from a donut).
Educate, educate, educate. And i'm not just talking about the schools, i'm talking about you -- tell these people what gerrymandering is, and why it's bogus. It won't look like you're getting much done at first, but it's the only honorable and productive alternative to just giving up.
when i see a programmer's method named DoSomething, i instinctively ask myself how much i trust the programmer -- does the method really Do Something? does it (also) Do Something Else that's not documented?
having to ask the same questions of a language's operators ("does + have side-effects here?") is anathema...
I agree that generics is the only enhancement that's not just sugar, and i incorrectly implied in my comment that generics were part of playing catch-up with C#.
that said, i do think all the C#-style sugar is well thought-out, and doesn't oversweeten the language -- so while the sugar isn't as "important" as the generics enhancement (i was doing just fine without it), it still should reduce vebosity (and certain common errors) in some common idioms.
inadvertently all-capsing names in the software world (e.g. referring to Apple's MAC computers) is one of my pet peeves and sometimes gets the better of me.
(PS you should see me when i can't restrain myself from correcting grammar...)
As others have pointed out, moving move type information into the declaration allows the compiler to help eliminate several kinds of type errors generated by programmers.
Now, if you want a weakly/dynamically/non-typed language, you should use one, and deal with the inevitable tradeoffs. It's not like there's a shortage of non-strongly-typed languages out there.
I see all six of the enhancements described in the article as coming directly from C#, and I think they're all Good Things. (i don't remember enough from my Lisp days to know if some ultimately derive from that most elegant language.)
i've been a Java programmer (primarily) for 8 years, and just recently did a project in C# -- which i was dreading, but the language turned out to be OK, like Java with sops thrown to C++ diehards.
now, if Sun adds operator overloading (*shudder*), i'm jumping ship.
Are you retarded, or astroturfing? did you bother to read the freaking article? (duh, no.)
Nothing mentioned in this article should break existing Java code. In fact, the author specifically mentions (regarding 'enhanced for loops') that the designers are avoiding introducing new keywords where possible to preserve compatibility with existing code.
Slashdot Mirror
>> If anyone has a solution to stupid, ignorant voters coupled with evil politicians, I'd like to hear it, cuz I'm out of ideas.
Well, the time-honored "solution" is to just cut the voters out of the loop and proceed directly to tyranny.
Some Slashdotters might trot out BS like technocracy, but fundamentally any system that excludes the population from participating in decision-making is indistinguishable from tyrrany (in the way a coffee cup is topologically indistinguishable from a donut).
Educate, educate, educate. And i'm not just talking about the schools, i'm talking about you -- tell these people what gerrymandering is, and why it's bogus. It won't look like you're getting much done at first, but it's the only honorable and productive alternative to just giving up.
Hear, hear!
when i see a programmer's method named DoSomething, i instinctively ask myself how much i trust the programmer -- does the method really Do Something? does it (also) Do Something Else that's not documented?
having to ask the same questions of a language's operators ("does + have side-effects here?") is anathema...
I agree that generics is the only enhancement that's not just sugar, and i incorrectly implied in my comment that generics were part of playing catch-up with C#.
that said, i do think all the C#-style sugar is well thought-out, and doesn't oversweeten the language -- so while the sugar isn't as "important" as the generics enhancement (i was doing just fine without it), it still should reduce vebosity (and certain common errors) in some common idioms.
Heh
sorry, i should have added a smiley 8)
inadvertently all-capsing names in the software world (e.g. referring to Apple's MAC computers) is one of my pet peeves and sometimes gets the better of me.
(PS you should see me when i can't restrain myself from correcting grammar...)
> I see all six of the enhancements described in the article as coming directly from C#, and I think they're all Good Things.
err, except for the generics, duh. which i think is just an OK Thing.
As others have pointed out, moving move type information into the declaration allows the compiler to help eliminate several kinds of type errors generated by programmers.
Now, if you want a weakly/dynamically/non-typed language, you should use one, and deal with the inevitable tradeoffs. It's not like there's a shortage of non-strongly-typed languages out there.
Do tell what in this article transforms Java (*) into a weakly-typed language?
(* NB: Java is not an acronym.)
I see all six of the enhancements described in the article as coming directly from C#, and I think they're all Good Things. (i don't remember enough from my Lisp days to know if some ultimately derive from that most elegant language.)
i've been a Java programmer (primarily) for 8 years, and just recently did a project in C# -- which i was dreading, but the language turned out to be OK, like Java with sops thrown to C++ diehards.
now, if Sun adds operator overloading (*shudder*), i'm jumping ship.
Are you retarded, or astroturfing? did you bother to read the freaking article? (duh, no.)
Nothing mentioned in this article should break existing Java code. In fact, the author specifically mentions (regarding 'enhanced for loops') that the designers are avoiding introducing new keywords where possible to preserve compatibility with existing code.