Re:Under the Hood with Java 10 Enhanced Generics
by lukedegruchy on Monday December 29, 2014 @09:09PM
(#8812944)
What's wrong with Ceylon's type system? I find it incredibly well designed. For instance, the Ceylon compiler won't allow you to assign null to a non-optional variable. Also, there is a bottom type, which makes controvariance far more manageable. I could go on.
Re:Under the Hood with Java 10 Enhanced Generics
by jbooth on Monday December 29, 2014 @09:18PM
(#8812972)
"Talking it out" isn't an option when you're dealing with code that's older than last week, let alone code written by developers that you've never met - you can't talk it out retroactively. That's a huge part of the 'which effective subset' argument against C++ and Scala. The argument is that, in the long term, 'simplicity and consistency', even if clunky at times, are way more effective than 'expressiveness'.
Re:Under the Hood with Java 10 Enhanced Generics
by lmm on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @03:27AM
(#8813803)
> "Talking it out" isn't an option when you're dealing with code that's older than last week, let alone code written by developers that you've never met - you can't talk it out retroactively.
Omitting dots and parens is so superficial that you could change the code purely mechanically to your preferred style. Just like running an autoformatter on someone's code before reading it because you don't like their indentation style.
Consistency is important, but effectiveness is, by my lights, moreso. Java's biggest problem isn't the language, which is sad, but its type system, and I've yet to see a newer alternative JVM language with a type system remotely worth discussing. (Which isn't to say it doesn't exist, but it sure isn't Ceylon or Kotlin.)