It's bad smalltalk to emulate C while your programming for it, and similarly it's bad C to emulate smalltalk with it. It's like I would take his original java version and made it into perl, insisting that the perl script HAS to be in a class definition, and HAS to be in a main method, I MUST define the resultset in a static class list, and output with separate methods. Saying that perl couldn't reproduce my 'reusable object' java functionality with doing that is just pedantic.

He should of just extracted a real example where it's impossible to do something in a short amount of code due to the lack of a specific feature, or being chained to java's static typing. Like converting a JDBC ResultSet to an int[]. (5 lines of code, 15 if you don't compress the curly brackets)

A real life implementation of his example: public class Out { public static void main(String args[]){ for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) { System.out.print(''+i*i+' ');} System.out.println();}

Also just because a language is succinct, doesn't mean it's productive. Just look at SML. It's many, many restrictions act as a straitjacket to do simple things, yet also keeps things succinct. It's would be better to say that because of intentional restrictions x (static typing) or lack of feature y (first class functions), it makes it that doing some simple thing z is forced to used workaround a. Because language b has this feature set, this leads to general bureaucratic overload.

Java isn't bureaucratic just because of the language alone, Sun & apache contributes a lot of this itself in how they've programmed their standard libraries and their love affair with XML.