Comments on: Through the Java looking glass http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/ Alex Miller's technical blog Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:39:50 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Martin Harris http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-206766 Martin Harris Sat, 22 May 2010 14:41:03 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/#comment-206766 The mocking framework JMockit is a good example of Java Instrumentation working to great effect. http://code.google.com/p/jmockit/ The mocking framework JMockit is a good example of Java Instrumentation working to great effect.

http://code.google.com/p/jmockit/

]]> By: Brennan Spies http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-18936 Brennan Spies Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:17:04 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/#comment-18936 I think that Tim Bray's comment about 80/20 (which you linked to elsewhere) really hits the nail on the head. Do you go and (painfully) retrofit a language with features for which it was never really designed in order to go after that last 20 percent? I was pretty excited initially about closures in Java, but started to feel just about the opposite after reading all the proposals. I think that dynamically typed (or at least statically inferred ) languages have a much easier time representing closures in a natural way. Perhaps JavaFX Script would be a better vehicle for this feature? I think that Tim Bray’s comment about 80/20 (which you linked to elsewhere) really hits the nail on the head. Do you go and (painfully) retrofit a language with features for which it was never really designed in order to go after that last 20 percent? I was pretty excited initially about closures in Java, but started to feel just about the opposite after reading all the proposals.

I think that dynamically typed (or at least statically inferred ) languages have a much easier time representing closures in a natural way. Perhaps JavaFX Script would be a better vehicle for this feature?

]]> By: Søren Bjerregaard Vrist http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-17936 Søren Bjerregaard Vrist Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:25:20 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/#comment-17936 Interesting post. Got me thinking, and I think I agree with your "fear" for the future <blockquote> ...or whether it will be just the ugly step-child of these ideas which are better executed in their own environments. </blockquote> Interesting post. Got me thinking, and I think I agree with your “fear” for the future

…or whether it will be just the ugly step-child of these ideas which are better executed in their own environments.

]]> By: Alex Miller - Java 7 Roundup (Dec 18th) http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-17928 Alex Miller - Java 7 Roundup (Dec 18th) Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:00:22 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/#comment-17928 [...] My random thoughts [...] [...] My random thoughts [...]

]]> By: Casper http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/comment-page-1/#comment-17923 Casper Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:17:35 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/14/through-the-java-looking-glass/#comment-17923 Yardena, I couldn't agree with you more. Rather than trying to squeeze a square peg through a round hole I think its high time for a new version of Java. Java's foundations are 15 years old, lessons have been learned both in and around Java. I wholeheartedly have to say that Java is no longer "easy to program in", not compared to languages which have a less conservative attitude towards codified constructs. I've seen this many times, the classic example I pull out is telling a junior developer to hook events to a button in both C# and Java and witness the difference. Other language have have embraced contractual development which Java really made mainstream, but also moved the art forward since then with productivity in mind. If the pseudo-generics/auto-boxing addition in Tiger is a representative example of the complexity added if we get closures, then perhaps we aren't really doing Java a favor in the long run unless we also start to lax backwards compatibility - cutting off the legacy tail. Yardena, I couldn’t agree with you more. Rather than trying to squeeze a square peg through a round hole I think its high time for a new version of Java. Java’s foundations are 15 years old, lessons have been learned both in and around Java.

I wholeheartedly have to say that Java is no longer “easy to program in”, not compared to languages which have a less conservative attitude towards codified constructs. I’ve seen this many times, the classic example I pull out is telling a junior developer to hook events to a button in both C# and Java and witness the difference.

Other language have have embraced contractual development which Java really made mainstream, but also moved the art forward since then with productivity in mind. If the pseudo-generics/auto-boxing addition in Tiger is a representative example of the complexity added if we get closures, then perhaps we aren’t really doing Java a favor in the long run unless we also start to lax backwards compatibility – cutting off the legacy tail.

]]>