Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:42:57 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, chat@FreeBSD.org, Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <15326.55441.615206.243327@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <3BDED411.DDEA0BD7@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.011030073149.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <3BDED411.DDEA0BD7@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Java has several problems: > > > > I still prefer it to C++'s problems. :) > > These all devolve into programmer issues. They are no worse > than the requirement to use prototypes or the "volatile" > keyword, which were added to C. You don't *have* to use volatile in C, and the addition of the volatile keyword came out of C++ work. We can blame it on C++. (I have a friend on the C++ standards committee, and we love to give him grief about what a joke the language is.) > > > 1) It can't do multiple inheritance > > > > Interfaces are like multiple inheritance of pure abstract classes and are > > simpler to get right. > > They are simpler, but they rob you of the ability to do > necessarily complex tasks. A generalization. They may require you to do them differently than you would in C++, but certainly don't rob you of the ability to do them. This rethinking is a *GOOD* thing. > > > 2) You can instance classes without constructing them (the > > > JavaMail API has a number of examples of this) > > > > So? > > It should not be permited to have unconstructed instances > lying around. This all derives from Java trying to claim > that it doesn't have pointers, it has "references". > > IMO, this was added for CS professors who still are unable > to distinguish pointer and array math. No, this annoys CS professors, who don't claim this is a pure object oriented language. However, those of us who want to solve problems (vs. debate the pureness of the language) are pretty happy. :) (The same CS professors complain about native types, which are not pure objects, but allow the language to actually have usable performance. Again, it's a theory vs. practical argument.) > As a friend of mine might says "Happy Prof Land" (the same > place where array indices are never out of bounds). How you compare un-instantiated classes and out-of-bounds array indices is beyond me. They are so unrelated. You are a funny guy Terry. :) > > > 3) Strong typing is for weak minds > > > > Or lazy ones. :) I wouldn't use Java for OS hacking, but for applications, > > strong typing is more useful. > > Sized types would be much more useful, particularly for C, > but ANSI keeps wimping out... I agree that having sized types would be nice for OS level stuff, that's for sure. I'd like enumerations as well, but the amount of things that Java is missing vs. the amount of good stuff it has so far surpasses C++ that it's not even funny. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15326.55441.615206.243327>