"Curt Sampson" <cjs / cynic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.NEB.4.61.0501280820130.14315 / angelic-vtfw.cvpn.cynic.net...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> > "Curt Sampson" <cjs / cynic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pine.NEB.4.61.0501271018220.2459 / angelic-vtfw.cvpn.cynic.net...
> >
> >> But I would propose actually changing the language to better support
> >> this sort of thing.
> >
> > I opt against this: not every good or useful language feature must be
> > present in Ruby.
>
> No. Ruby could end up being a second-rate language instead.

Without type inference?  I don't think so - and probably others, too.

> Look at Java. It was ten years behind the state of the art in OOP
> when it was first made, has advanced little since, and its prospects
> for real advancement are almost nil. (I'd bet that never going to
> see continuations in Java, for example.)

Java has native threads.  That's definitively a major advantage -
especially on multiprocessor systems.  Also with regard to OO Java is not
as bad as you claim.  It got rid of several C++ problems (preprocessor,
multiple inheritance, weak RTTI) while introducing some of its own (jar
hell and classpath problems).  It has very sophisticated runtime
environments (with GC, JIT, HotSpot, diagnostic interfaces...), something
I would not claim of Ruby.

> Java's already reliant on
> precompilers for things like macros and aspect-oriented programming.

Because it was not designed for that.  C isn't designed for AOP either.

> That's why I left Java for Ruby.
>
> Lisp, on the other hand, in all of its various forms, is still one of
> the most powerful programming languages in the world, and is still
> being used to write new systems more than forty-five years after its
> invention.

Still, even Lisp is not suited to all programming tasks.  Many languages
have their strengths and weaknesses and fields where they shine.

Regards

    robert