[cap-talk] Conciseness of languages

[Stiegler, Marc D]

I have learned just enough about Java 1.5, which is the generics
release, to conclude that 1.5 is an enormous step up in complexity. Java
generics seems good in the sense that simple things are simple and
complicated things are possible. Unfortunately, some truly weird stuff
is also possible. And the big problem with features in a programming
language that support truly weird stuff is, someone will use it,
probably for something we'd like to use, but decide not to because the
cost is too great.

Anyway, the reason generics are taking off slowly is, I suspect, that
java 1.5 is a horror. After a decade of doubling the size of the API
with every release, they have finally realized that API enlargement is
not a sufficient mechanism to meet their complexification goals. They
have finally moved to the heart of the matter by doubling the size of
the language with every release. This is where you get good complexity
increases.

I suppose we should be thankful that they postponed language
complexification as long as they did. Restraint in feature invention
does not seem a survivable trait in computing.

I myself still use 1.4, even when my compiler is 1.5. It uses a
toolchain and syntax I understand.

--marcs

-----Original Message-----
From: cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org
[mailto:cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org] On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:24 AM
To: General discussions concerning capability systems.
Subject: Re: [cap-talk] Conciseness of languages


I personaly gave up on Java before the generics support, but if Java
people would actualy pick up on generics it might actualy be worth an
oter look. But as the Java crowd does not seem to be using it, it might
just be that java generics has some flaws in it?