Comments on: Stronger Java, no sugar please http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/ Jing Xue's Weblog Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:35:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: glalpalerpiz http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-101631 glalpalerpiz Sun, 03 Aug 2008 06:27:13 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-101631 Brilliant! Brilliant!

]]> By: Kris http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-34098 Kris Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:39:53 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-34098 Less complexity ==> More adoption. Please don't make this an elitist language. Just add enough functionality maintaining the KISS principle. Sytantic sugar is nice as long as there are no gotchas. Hopefully the community learns from the botched generics in Java when compared to C#. Less complexity ==> More adoption. Please don’t make this an elitist language. Just add enough functionality maintaining the KISS principle. Sytantic sugar is nice as long as there are no gotchas. Hopefully the community learns from the botched generics in Java when compared to C#.

]]> By: Pure Danger Tech » Blog Archive » Java 7 Roundup (Feb 28th) http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-30074 Pure Danger Tech » Blog Archive » Java 7 Roundup (Feb 28th) Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:18:56 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-30074 [...] seem essential to Groovy or Java, especially considering the complexity. He was followed up by Jing Xue who basically agreed with him that closures as syntactical sugar are not worth [...] [...] seem essential to Groovy or Java, especially considering the complexity. He was followed up by Jing Xue who basically agreed with him that closures as syntactical sugar are not worth [...]

]]> By: Debasish Ghosh http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-30020 Debasish Ghosh Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:03:42 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-30020 I have a somewhat orthogonal opinion on this subject. Syntactic sugars always have their place in a programming language - Microsoft has at last realized it. I had blogged about my thoughts on adding syntactic sugars in Java in http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-oop-alone-in-java-is-not-enough.html. I have a somewhat orthogonal opinion on this subject. Syntactic sugars always have their place in a programming language - Microsoft has at last realized it. I had blogged about my thoughts on adding syntactic sugars in Java in http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-oop-alone-in-java-is-not-enough.html.

]]> By: Neal Gafter http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-29943 Neal Gafter Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:03:12 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-29943 Actually, closures add far more than syntax sugar if done properly. They make it possible to express some kinds of APIs that are not possible or practical to express today. See http://www.bejug.org/confluenceBeJUG/display/PARLEYS/Closures+for+Java Admittedly there are alternative proposals around that are merely syntax sugar. Actually, closures add far more than syntax sugar if done properly. They make it possible to express some kinds of APIs that are not possible or practical to express today. See http://www.bejug.org/confluenceBeJUG/display/PARLEYS/Closures+for+Java Admittedly there are alternative proposals around that are merely syntax sugar.

]]> By: Simon Cition http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/comment-page-1/#comment-29918 Simon Cition Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:57:10 +0000 http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2007/02/27/stronger-java-no-sugar-please/#comment-29918 Whilst I would agree with the sentiment of your view, I would add (emphasis?) that syntax sugar has its place (my pet hate is writing plain old getter/setters - something simple and a great time saver). In regards 'compartmental deployment', I would not put that in a 'syntax sugar' category. However, I agree such capability is highly warranted and add: within a broader server capability (a new, super, simple Java Server if you will - definitely no EJB legacy). Simon Whilst I would agree with the sentiment of your view, I would add (emphasis?) that syntax sugar has its place (my pet hate is writing plain old getter/setters - something simple and a great time saver).

In regards ‘compartmental deployment’, I would not put that in a ’syntax sugar’ category. However, I agree such capability is highly warranted and add: within a broader server capability (a new, super, simple Java Server if you will - definitely no EJB legacy).

Simon

]]>