Re:Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManager...
by Retric on Saturday June 29, 2013 @06:42AM
(#5961998)
Ok, if your going to ignore 98% of all programming languages out there and focus on say the most popular 20 it's not that bad. However, there is a long tail to programming languages and some of them are actually simple, strait forward, and still useful for large progects even if not the 'Enerprise CRUD' variety.
Re:Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManager...
by Silhouette on Saturday June 29, 2013 @08:40AM
(#5962212)
I'm not disagreeing with your point about the long tail. I'm just saying that there are other languages that, by this metric, are significantly more complicated than Java, yet which don't get drowned under the weight of design pattern abstraction idiom pattern architectures. It seems whatever causes that effect in Java is not (only) how complicated the language is.
Re:Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManager...
by Retric on Sunday June 30, 2013 @10:18AM
(#5965854)
I think a lot of that crap is missing language features. If java 1.0 let you pass around functions at least as well as c# then many of those patterns would not have been worth talking about.
Unfortunately, among the major industrial programming languages, that is far from the longest specification out there. Moreover, some of the major industrial programming languages don't even have a standard reference specification. Notwithstanding its length, the Java spec is actually fairly efficient and well-organised in comparison.