...Like when Barney Gumble falls out of the sky and lands on the metal roof of a pillow factory, and then falls onto the street and gets run over by a marshmallow truck??
This kind of thing is quite common in many languages. Words or phrases are generalized in many cases to a point where they no longer describe the same specific concept or require the narrow context previously required.
I remember reading a rant by C.S. Lewis describing this very thing. He was saddened by the way that the word "gentleman" had, over the years, been generalized to mean practically any human male. Previously, it had mostly been used to describe a certain segment of wealthy landowners. Lewis implied that this kind of thing was unfortunate, because there no longer remained in the English language a single word to describe a "wealthy landowner" in the way that "gentleman" used to. But there were already plenty of words to describe a "human male".
Take the word "artist" as another example. Certianly, people 50 years ago would have just laughed in your face if you called someone like Britney Spears an "artist". We already had a proper word (or phrase) for describing her kind: "(amateur) musician". "Artist" had a much narrower and more prestigious implication. Now it's used for anyone who can strum a chord on a guitar or melt wax.
Careful! You're getting really confused. You said it yourself (the mutual exclusivity principle): (1) either truth exists, or (2) truth doesn't exist. It's either one or the other, but not both. And you don't know which one it is, so you're going to assume (2).
However, in doing that, you've assumed that the answer to the riddle is an absolute truth value that is independent of your judgement -- it presupposes absolute truth -- whether or not you can know it. In that case, the only way to remedy your situation is to assume, or know (1). To assume (2) is to contradict your own reasoning and ignore logic -- supposedly the only truth you believe in.
Now try replacing "truth" in the mutual exclusivity principle with other nouns: "thought", "a spoon", "my hand". It all boils down to the same thing, whether it's abstract thought or the real world. You may not know if your hand exists, but you know absolute truth does.
If nothing I say has gotten through to you yet, I don't think I'll be able to help you. I suggest you study up on this a little bit. Take some philosophy classes when you get to college. I'd suggest a philosophical skepticism class. Read some of the works by George Moore, Wittgenstein, and Hilary Putnam. Even the harshest of recognized philosophical skeptics won't doubt that there is absolute truth, though they'll argue that you can't know it (another point I disagree with -- but that's not what we're discussing).
I think you're a little confused about what truth is.
Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract thought.
Is that an absolute truth, or is it just a probabilistic observation about the real world, for which you "lack data"? Additionally, how do you separate abstract thought from the "real world"? Is there a nice thick black dividing line? I'd like to see it. If I'm a schizophrenic patient, is my abstract thought considered truth? Or by "abstract thought", do you mean those thoughts that are communicated, converged upon, and accepted by a majority of the individuals in the real world?
...you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter of probability.
So you're saying that you just don't know the truth, or that you refuse to believe it. That's not the same thing as saying there's no absolute truth. Either God does exist or he doesn't. You may not know the truth, or you may somehow calculate a probability (please, give us the formula!), but by doing that, you're just admitting your ignorance.
There is absolute truth, and it doesn't care what you believe.
I too have done my share of LISP programming (I was doing AI for a year in grad school), and I understand how macros can be useful. However, I see them used unwisely more often than not. As an embedded programmer porting code everyday between every combination of 4 architectures and 3 operating systems, I tend to make use of good macros probably more than most other programmers. But when I see stupid stuff like the ones I mentioned above, it's like speaking in english and replacing every instance of "the" with "DEFINITE ARTICLE". It makes things ambiguous and hard to understand, and there's generally no reason to do it.
In any other language, I'd have to write a function to do the additions...
Really? You can't do stuff like that in C or C++? I'd beg to differ. Better yet, you can use an inline function and get the best of both worlds.
I don't think anyone has trouble "grokking" the idea of language redefinitions. I think you might be confusing programming languages with what many programmers generally refer to as APIs. I know, there's a thin gray line, but making FOREVER a macro to replace for(;;) is not the same thing as defining a macro to do addition modulo m.
Yes, I'd agree with that remark about shorthand programming. I thought it was funny when I was teaching classes at UIUC to see stuff like this from the students:
#define FOREVER for(;;)
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
#define ONE 1
#define PUSHORT unsigned short *
#define DONE goto end
The first thing an amateur programmer does when assigned a new project in C/C++ is to go redefine the language and all the types. I scolded them for these kinds of things, knowing that once they were forced to read other people's code often that they would realize how stupid these kinds of things are. Unfortunately, once I started my career in embedded development, I quickly learned how stupid I must have been to think that people left these behaviors behind in college... (all the above examples are taken from "professional" code that I've seen in the last few weeks)
Actually, I believe that Texans put "Texas Pride/History" at the top of that list. All else is considered tripe. It's incredible how many of my fellow Texans can't locate Illinois on a map (and those that can were most likely not born or educated in Texas).
I used to want to put a bumper sticker on my car that said "Thank God I'm not a (real) Texan". Then I thought that might not be a good idea. Normally a Texas driver will run you off the road simply because he's oblivious to what's going on around him. When he's angry, he runs you off the road on PURPOSE!
But I think population density has something to do with it. If every US state was like Montana, we'd have a much higher percentage of people in or close to the cities, and a much higher percentage of broadband coverage. However, many US states are like Indiana, where there are approximately five or six houses every square mile. It's hard to cover country like that. Much of Canada is quite different. You go a few dozen miles from the metropolitan areas and there is virtually nobody around. Canada doesn't need to drag a bunch of wires out to the sticks, because nobody lives out there.
Certainly, there are problems with the US broadband providers. I've been using the internet on an hourly basis since 1993. I've got a DSL connection, my own domain and mail/http server at home, and an elaborate home network. But I've considered giving it all up just so I don't have to deal with the phone company anymore...
But comparing the "broadband connectivity" of these countries based on these statistics really is comparing apples and oranges.
Genetic engineering has always been part of the big picture. Take, for instance, dogs -- they are (most likely) genetically engineered wolves, prepared specifically to serve the purposes of ancient humans. Additionally, "natural selection" can also be a kind of genetic engineering.
Humans have evolved to a point where we have used our available resources to slow our evolution. Natural selection no longer works like it used to. Poorly-adapted (however you measure that) people can live just as long and have just as many children as those who are well prepared for adverse survival conditions. Developed countries defend a right to life, no matter how stupid you are.
Now we have a chance to turn this trend around and speed up our evolution; to control it in ways that were never practical before. We should embrace this opportunity. It will happen whether we like it or not. Like many "scary" new technologies, we need to recognize it, develop some kind of conventional wisdom regarding its use, and then exploit it to our best benefit. Declaring it dangerous, banning it, and trying to run the other direction is not only futile, it sets us behind those who will embrace it.
So you're saying that Bush had a different timetable than Chirac, and when his timetable ran out, he decided war had become inevitable. I'd agree with that. Twelve years is a very generous timetable.
When Bush's timetable runs out, he has the option of using a powerful military to lead a quick and successful campaign. Chirac has to find other means, or just do nothing at all.
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
...just put it in an image instead of plain text. It'll be awhile before it's reasonable to OCR *every* image in order to scan for possible e-mail addresses...
...is that they make a life out of deception and lies. They consider themselves "good people" (and they really believe that). I'm sure if you look into this guy's financial history, you'll find lots of problems: bankruptcy, maxed out credit cards, unpaid loans, etc.
If you bring any moral charges against him, it will be like talking to a brick wall. He's already rationalized it all away in his own mind. Even though he will often bring the very same moral charges against other people, he will defend (or deny) his own actions down to the last detail.
It's called "hypocrisy". We all do it. However, when this guy does it, it's just a little more annoying.
It's interesting to note how peer pressure can propagate ignorance. For instance, the name "Ariel" is a very masculine name. It was used in the Bible several times, once as the name of a soldier, and another time, as an alias for Jerusalem. Additionally, Ariel was used by Shakespeare in "The Tempest". Then, of course, there's Ariel Sharon. Ariel has never been a feminine name.
The name "Ariel" is not in the top 1000 in the 70's (for girls), but it appears in the 1980's, about the time the Little Mermaid movie comes out, and suddenly its rank rises above 100!!
I wonder if those fathers would have called their daughters "William", or perhaps "Bartholomew", if that had been the name of the Little Mermaid....should be an interesting social project.
Back in the mid 70's, a Canadian company called Bricklin built cars with gull-wing doors that had plastic bodies. The colors were almost flourescent. Of course, a lot of them look somewhat faded today, but they still look pretty good.
Then, in the early 80's, a company called Delorean created some fine gull-wing cars with stainless steel bodies. Yeah, they get fingerprints, but they still look really damn good after 20 years. And no, they're not heavy -- 2700 pounds on a full tank of gas. That's probably less weight than your 4-cylinder.
Yes, there are lots of options available to the auto manufacturers. But most likely, things won't change very much. Non-painted automobiles have come and gone, but painted ones have always been around. Additionally, really cool features don't come from really old companies. The risk that Mr. Executive might have a few less bucks in his pocket at the end of the year just don't justify the initial investment.
Kent Brockman: Could Homer Simpson be a communist? His father spoke out on his behalf. Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!...
Skinner: Defying orders, eh? Well, I see you Scotsmen are thrifty with courage, too. Willie: Okay, Skinner, that's the last time you'll slap your Willie around. I quit!
Kent Brockman: Hordes of panicky people seem to be evacuating the town for some unknown reason. Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside? Professor: Mmm, yes I would, Kent.
Don't forget the TextNES emulator-- a NES emulator that uses ASCII text output in a DOS windows for the graphics. Really cool! I'd like to find the source code to this thing and port it to Linux/ncurses. If anyone knows who wrote this, let me know.
I bought WC3 on the first day of its release. A huge starcraft fan, I couldn't imagine it could have been bad. I played WC3 nonstop for weeks in a row, and I didn't like it nearly as much as StarCraft. "That's OK," I thought, "it's just because I haven't played it as much as StarCraft."
Well, I slowly came to the realization that I didn't like the game very much. It was just boring. I got the feeling that part of the reason that StarCraft was so fun was because you could be creative and play strategies that the developers hadn't intended. Unfortunately, they must have thought that was a bad thing, because in WC3, they capped the unit limit much lower and added the annoying concept of "upkeep". Now, every game is the same (you have like two or three strategy options), and if one of your team's partners is a bad player or just uncooperative, you're screwed.
I'll buy the expansion. I hope it turns my opinion of the game around. I really *want* to like WC3. If it's even half as good as SC, it should give me limitless hours of entertainment.
By the way, I'm personally of the opinion that nobody should be driving a car >10 years old. The improvements in emisssions technology and safety have been dramatic, and your old car can be recycled and turned into new ones.
...and you would be wrong. All these "safety features" you're talking about are not new. Air bags have been around for 20 years, crash testing has been around much longer, and the extra safety features you get with the more expensive cars (traction voodoo, 12 air bags, etc.) have always been quite sufficient. It's in the auto industry's best interest to get you to think that the new cars have lots of extra modern developments. But to be perfectly honest, the most recycled thing about automobiles are the ideas, be it safety or otherwise. Additionally, my 21-year-old sports car passes both Texas and California emissions standards (stock, all original)...I'm not sure what kind of advancements they've made in emissions, but I'd bet it's next to nothing.
You shouldn't fall for the rhetoric of the car commercials on TV. You're on a subscription basis with the auto industry, and you're wasting your money.
the older, side scrolling or text-based games were so much more fun and playable than almost all of the "progressive" newer 3-D rendered games? I like a lot of the 3-D games, but in a way, I miss the old side-scroller games. For instance, I have yet to find a 3-D first-person game where the difficulty of the game wasn't tied directly to the fact that I'm plopped into a 3-D world without stereoscopic or peripheral vision, thus making the "hard parts" simply the inability to perceive and then control the situation. (In real life, it doesn't take 5 seconds to look to the side or turn around.)
It's too bad that many of the game companies (and many of us) have been convinced that if a game isn't using the most advanced and expensive technology, it can't be good. Yet we long for the olden days of "Blaster Master", "Super Metroid", or even "Combat."
I applaud those who are working to build foundational tools for Linux games. We need the renderers, photoshops, modelers, etc., so we can focus on game design.
No! Just use PC1 (P-C-one). Oh, right...someone's probably already trademarked that, too.
Re:From the people who brought you:
on
Effective Java
·
· Score: 1
Which APIs? Which bugs? Nothing is bug free. Also, your comment about "real time interpretation" is off base, see below.
I remember the AWT and then, especially, Swing being extremely buggy. Trying to get a combobox to display correctly when you put it at the bottom of a window is one of the many problems I can remember right now. I understand that the APIs are still "new" (relative to the STL?) and constantly under development, but that makes using Java a poor management decision.
Applets apply to Java portability how again?
The Java platform is ported both to operating systems and to browsers. Using applets as an example of the poor portability of Java bytecode across different Java platform implementations is a perfectly good example of the over-hyped "portability" of Java. "A lot of people don't use Java applets" is not a good rebuttal.
Now you are exhibiting true ignorance for the world to see.
You should know that when you attack the person on the other side of the discussion, you're making it easier for the more intelligent readers to dismiss your arguments. As I said (and as you quoted), Java was designed to be an interpreted language. Yes, there are "real" Java compilers out there, and they're getting pretty good. I'm excited for what the future has in store for the maturity of free Java platform implementations. But the Java compilers available have never been good enough for management to say "let's use gcj instead of Sun's JVM".
Notice I never said that "Java is slow", although you spend an entire paragraph trying to convince me otherwise. The dynamic recompilation (JIT) that is available in most Java compilers is certainly a good thing, and compiled java is even better. But memory consumption, API compatibility (!), and yes, even speed, are things that need to be considered in a language that's going to be the foundation of a substantially large application.
I'll give you a strong reason for disliking C++ - you can't turn on bounds checking in STL arrays using operator[] without hacking STL.
Are you saying that C++ is a bad language because the STL doesn't do bounds checking on arrays?? I can personally think of several reasons for disliking C++, but that's never been one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading a rant by C.S. Lewis describing this very thing. He was saddened by the way that the word "gentleman" had, over the years, been generalized to mean practically any human male. Previously, it had mostly been used to describe a certain segment of wealthy landowners. Lewis implied that this kind of thing was unfortunate, because there no longer remained in the English language a single word to describe a "wealthy landowner" in the way that "gentleman" used to. But there were already plenty of words to describe a "human male".
Take the word "artist" as another example. Certianly, people 50 years ago would have just laughed in your face if you called someone like Britney Spears an "artist". We already had a proper word (or phrase) for describing her kind: "(amateur) musician". "Artist" had a much narrower and more prestigious implication. Now it's used for anyone who can strum a chord on a guitar or melt wax.
However, in doing that, you've assumed that the answer to the riddle is an absolute truth value that is independent of your judgement -- it presupposes absolute truth -- whether or not you can know it. In that case, the only way to remedy your situation is to assume, or know (1). To assume (2) is to contradict your own reasoning and ignore logic -- supposedly the only truth you believe in.
Now try replacing "truth" in the mutual exclusivity principle with other nouns: "thought", "a spoon", "my hand". It all boils down to the same thing, whether it's abstract thought or the real world. You may not know if your hand exists, but you know absolute truth does.
If nothing I say has gotten through to you yet, I don't think I'll be able to help you. I suggest you study up on this a little bit. Take some philosophy classes when you get to college. I'd suggest a philosophical skepticism class. Read some of the works by George Moore, Wittgenstein, and Hilary Putnam. Even the harshest of recognized philosophical skeptics won't doubt that there is absolute truth, though they'll argue that you can't know it (another point I disagree with -- but that's not what we're discussing).
Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract thought.
Is that an absolute truth, or is it just a probabilistic observation about the real world, for which you "lack data"? Additionally, how do you separate abstract thought from the "real world"? Is there a nice thick black dividing line? I'd like to see it. If I'm a schizophrenic patient, is my abstract thought considered truth? Or by "abstract thought", do you mean those thoughts that are communicated, converged upon, and accepted by a majority of the individuals in the real world?
So you're saying that you just don't know the truth, or that you refuse to believe it. That's not the same thing as saying there's no absolute truth. Either God does exist or he doesn't. You may not know the truth, or you may somehow calculate a probability (please, give us the formula!), but by doing that, you're just admitting your ignorance.
There is absolute truth, and it doesn't care what you believe.
In any other language, I'd have to write a function to do the additions...
Really? You can't do stuff like that in C or C++? I'd beg to differ. Better yet, you can use an inline function and get the best of both worlds.
I don't think anyone has trouble "grokking" the idea of language redefinitions. I think you might be confusing programming languages with what many programmers generally refer to as APIs. I know, there's a thin gray line, but making FOREVER a macro to replace for(;;) is not the same thing as defining a macro to do addition modulo m.
#define FOREVER for(;;)
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
#define ONE 1
#define PUSHORT unsigned short *
#define DONE goto end
The first thing an amateur programmer does when assigned a new project in C/C++ is to go redefine the language and all the types. I scolded them for these kinds of things, knowing that once they were forced to read other people's code often that they would realize how stupid these kinds of things are. Unfortunately, once I started my career in embedded development, I quickly learned how stupid I must have been to think that people left these behaviors behind in college... (all the above examples are taken from "professional" code that I've seen in the last few weeks)
I used to want to put a bumper sticker on my car that said "Thank God I'm not a (real) Texan". Then I thought that might not be a good idea. Normally a Texas driver will run you off the road simply because he's oblivious to what's going on around him. When he's angry, he runs you off the road on PURPOSE!
Certainly, there are problems with the US broadband providers. I've been using the internet on an hourly basis since 1993. I've got a DSL connection, my own domain and mail/http server at home, and an elaborate home network. But I've considered giving it all up just so I don't have to deal with the phone company anymore...
But comparing the "broadband connectivity" of these countries based on these statistics really is comparing apples and oranges.
Humans have evolved to a point where we have used our available resources to slow our evolution. Natural selection no longer works like it used to. Poorly-adapted (however you measure that) people can live just as long and have just as many children as those who are well prepared for adverse survival conditions. Developed countries defend a right to life, no matter how stupid you are.
Now we have a chance to turn this trend around and speed up our evolution; to control it in ways that were never practical before. We should embrace this opportunity. It will happen whether we like it or not. Like many "scary" new technologies, we need to recognize it, develop some kind of conventional wisdom regarding its use, and then exploit it to our best benefit. Declaring it dangerous, banning it, and trying to run the other direction is not only futile, it sets us behind those who will embrace it.
When Bush's timetable runs out, he has the option of using a powerful military to lead a quick and successful campaign. Chirac has to find other means, or just do nothing at all.
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
Microsoft's law: what you get when you put Moore's law and Murphy's law together.
If you bring any moral charges against him, it will be like talking to a brick wall. He's already rationalized it all away in his own mind. Even though he will often bring the very same moral charges against other people, he will defend (or deny) his own actions down to the last detail.
It's called "hypocrisy". We all do it. However, when this guy does it, it's just a little more annoying.
The name "Ariel" is not in the top 1000 in the 70's (for girls), but it appears in the 1980's, about the time the Little Mermaid movie comes out, and suddenly its rank rises above 100!!
I wonder if those fathers would have called their daughters "William", or perhaps "Bartholomew", if that had been the name of the Little Mermaid....should be an interesting social project.
Terahertz radiation lies on the boundary between radio and light waves...
Right...like how Kansas City lies on the boundary between Philadelphia and Los Angeles.
Then, in the early 80's, a company called Delorean created some fine gull-wing cars with stainless steel bodies. Yeah, they get fingerprints, but they still look really damn good after 20 years. And no, they're not heavy -- 2700 pounds on a full tank of gas. That's probably less weight than your 4-cylinder.
Yes, there are lots of options available to the auto manufacturers. But most likely, things won't change very much. Non-painted automobiles have come and gone, but painted ones have always been around. Additionally, really cool features don't come from really old companies. The risk that Mr. Executive might have a few less bucks in his pocket at the end of the year just don't justify the initial investment.
Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!
Skinner: Defying orders, eh? Well, I see you Scotsmen are thrifty with courage, too.
Willie: Okay, Skinner, that's the last time you'll slap your Willie around. I quit!
Kent Brockman: Hordes of panicky people seem to be evacuating the town for some unknown reason. Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?
Professor: Mmm, yes I would, Kent.
Don't forget the TextNES emulator-- a NES emulator that uses ASCII text output in a DOS windows for the graphics. Really cool! I'd like to find the source code to this thing and port it to Linux/ncurses. If anyone knows who wrote this, let me know.
Do you think "fr0sty p0st slashdot trolls" is a good name for a band?
Well, I slowly came to the realization that I didn't like the game very much. It was just boring. I got the feeling that part of the reason that StarCraft was so fun was because you could be creative and play strategies that the developers hadn't intended. Unfortunately, they must have thought that was a bad thing, because in WC3, they capped the unit limit much lower and added the annoying concept of "upkeep". Now, every game is the same (you have like two or three strategy options), and if one of your team's partners is a bad player or just uncooperative, you're screwed.
I'll buy the expansion. I hope it turns my opinion of the game around. I really *want* to like WC3. If it's even half as good as SC, it should give me limitless hours of entertainment.
You shouldn't fall for the rhetoric of the car commercials on TV. You're on a subscription basis with the auto industry, and you're wasting your money.
It's too bad that many of the game companies (and many of us) have been convinced that if a game isn't using the most advanced and expensive technology, it can't be good. Yet we long for the olden days of "Blaster Master", "Super Metroid", or even "Combat."
I applaud those who are working to build foundational tools for Linux games. We need the renderers, photoshops, modelers, etc., so we can focus on game design.
No! Just use PC1 (P-C-one). Oh, right...someone's probably already trademarked that, too.
I remember the AWT and then, especially, Swing being extremely buggy. Trying to get a combobox to display correctly when you put it at the bottom of a window is one of the many problems I can remember right now. I understand that the APIs are still "new" (relative to the STL?) and constantly under development, but that makes using Java a poor management decision.
Applets apply to Java portability how again?
The Java platform is ported both to operating systems and to browsers. Using applets as an example of the poor portability of Java bytecode across different Java platform implementations is a perfectly good example of the over-hyped "portability" of Java. "A lot of people don't use Java applets" is not a good rebuttal.
Now you are exhibiting true ignorance for the world to see.
You should know that when you attack the person on the other side of the discussion, you're making it easier for the more intelligent readers to dismiss your arguments. As I said (and as you quoted), Java was designed to be an interpreted language. Yes, there are "real" Java compilers out there, and they're getting pretty good. I'm excited for what the future has in store for the maturity of free Java platform implementations. But the Java compilers available have never been good enough for management to say "let's use gcj instead of Sun's JVM".
Notice I never said that "Java is slow", although you spend an entire paragraph trying to convince me otherwise. The dynamic recompilation (JIT) that is available in most Java compilers is certainly a good thing, and compiled java is even better. But memory consumption, API compatibility (!), and yes, even speed, are things that need to be considered in a language that's going to be the foundation of a substantially large application.
I'll give you a strong reason for disliking C++ - you can't turn on bounds checking in STL arrays using operator[] without hacking STL.
Are you saying that C++ is a bad language because the STL doesn't do bounds checking on arrays?? I can personally think of several reasons for disliking C++, but that's never been one of them.