×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mirah Tries To Make Java Fun With Ruby Syntax

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the user-friendly-is-hard dept.

Java 444

An anonymous reader writes "Java is performant, widely adopted and eminently portable, however, its syntax is largely inherited from C++ along with some of its esoteric unfriendliness. Mirah aims to place a friendly face on Java through the implementation of a syntax whose primary concern is developer friendliness (think Ruby/Python/Groovy), and route of least surprise. The result is a truly cogent alternative syntax delivering readability, expressiveness and some compelling new language features."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

444 comments

Performant is not a word. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554030)

It just isn't.

Re:Performant is not a word. (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554056)

The only time I've seen that wording was in German.

Re:Performant is not a word. (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554448)

There's a reason why nobody uses Java for desktop applications; it's too damn slow!

10-15 years ago, I would definitely agree with you. Unless you are building a hugely complex application, Java is fine for lightweight to mid-range software. For instance, I'm currently building a fairly lightweight cross-platform Java-based frontend for GnuPG (something that has been sorely needed for a long time) and my application runs as fast as anything else on the system even when it has several threads running at once. Java applications can even look native these days (Swing's Windows and GTK widgets are fine, but I admit the OS X look still needs some work) so you aren't even stuck with that hideous cross-platform look anymore if you don't want it.

Re:Performant is not a word. (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554530)

oops.. this reply got inserted into the wrong thread, it was supposed to be a follow-up to "Java & Ruby: Not known for high performance"

Re:Performant is not a word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554074)

Well, in German it is...

Re:Performant is not a word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554120)

The author of TFA is not on good terms with the English language. In particular, they have no idea how to use commas, apostrophes, or semicolons. (Hey, I'm not the best author, either. But the article could definitely use some editing.) I'm no editor, but this might do for a start:

  • "counter intuitively" -> "counterintuitively"
  • of them all; Java -> of them all: Java
  • up and coming -> up-and-coming
  • it's perceived bloat -> its perceived bloat (and numerous similar errors)
  • Goslings -> Gosling's
  • There are doubtless wars of words between them, which is the true path to divine happiness?, but what they all do is; make programming fun, intuitive and, above all, extremely productive. -> There are doubtless wars of words between them--which is the true path to divine happiness?--but what they all do is; make programming fun, intuitive and, above all, extremely productive.
  • lead to the emergence -> led to the emergence
  • there use case -> their use case
  • Lets look -> Let's look
  • Sorry I couldn't help myself -> Sorry, I couldn't help myself
  • Looks good no? -> Looks good, no?
  • help with it's direction -> help with its direction
  • it's Github -> its Github

Performant is in the summary, not the article, but I would be surprised if the anonymous submitter were someone other than the author of the article, given the summary writer's inability to string words together coherently. I'm assuming they'll see the comment here. (I'm too stubborn to allow Disqus comments and post this on their blog.)

Re:Performant is not a word. (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554246)

I realize that this is a bit off topic, but is there any chance you'd be willing to apply for the obviously vacant /. submission editor job?

Re:Performant is not a word. (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554562)

Agreed. Slashdot should headhunt this guy.

Re:Performant is not a word. (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554690)

Slashdot's hiring process is no different than that of any other modern American tech company: post a flyer of the job description ("Editors must be fluent in English, with strong proofreading skills and interest in the tech sector") on the inside of a utility closet door, leaving it up for 24 hours to comply with American labor law, before promtly removing it.

Then they hire 3 cent / hr. Indians to do the editing from overseas, citing a "lack of qualified domestic candidates." The only exception is Timothy, whose real name is Amit Sharon, who works straight from Israel as part of Mossad's American Media Subversion Division.

Re:Performant is not a word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554258)

Oh no! Muphry's Law claims another victim!

Java & Ruby: Not known for high performance! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554320)

The funniest thing about this is how neither Java nor Ruby are known for offering high performance.

There's a reason why nobody uses Java for desktop applications; it's too damn slow! The only reason it's viable for server-side applications is because it's easier to throw more hardware at any performance problems there.

Ruby is in much the same situation. Nobody uses it for desktop apps, and most server-side users end up discarding it once performance problems arise. Nobody with any skill uses it even for throwaway scripts; Perl is still a much better option!

Combining anything from those two communities will result in something that does not perform well. Furthermore, I don't trust that anybody within those communities has the skills necessary to change that. The "architects" and third-world offshore developers from the Java community won't be able to. Nor will the 16-year-old hipsters from the Ruby community.

Re:Java & Ruby: Not known for high performance (0)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554454)

Java is the fastest thing you can get, after c++. (That means 10% slower.) And there's plenty of boring business software is built with java (yes, desktop software). However for the game industry that 10% is pretty big deal, and they've already heavily invested in their mature c++ engines.

Re:Java & Ruby: Not known for high performance (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554566)

Hey look. It's a Java retard responding to a C/C++ retard. How uncommon.

FYI, both of you are harmful to your respective camps.

Uh... (1, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554038)

"Performant" is not "a truly cogent alternative syntax delivering readability, expressiveness and some compelling new language features." It's not even a word.

Re:Uh... (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554064)

Exactly, you have to have a PhD to make up words.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554102)

Exactly, you have to have a PhD to make up words.

You might want to consider "must have" or "need to have" instead of "have to have". You don't need a PhD to make up words, but a mediocre understanding of the language is preferred.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554094)

Web definitions for performant:

- Capable of or characterized by an adequate or excellent level of performance or efficiency;
- Someone who performs something, such as a ritual;
- Of ...

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554158)

"Ain't" is in the dictionary, too. Your point is?

Given the rest of the summary, the author is simply using large "words" to seem intelligent. He ain't.

Re:Uh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554240)

"Ain't" is a contraction of "are not" or "am not", thus the usage "He ain't" is always incorrect, regardless of your views on the status of the word "ain't" itself.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554110)

Maybe not, but I've read it can help kickstart dev productivity in creating impactful UX for the smartphone and desktop spaces.

Re:Uh... (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554184)

You can tell something's aiming for maximum readability when its description uses the word "cogent."

Note to Slashdot pedants: that's a joke. Please do not define "cogent" in the response because I do not give a crap.

Re:Uh... (2)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554330)

Normally I'd honor that request, but the irony in this particular case got the better of me.

(from dictionary.reference.com)

1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554268)

.. some other smack needs a quick phd or wiki-recognition, and before you say your next buzzword here comes the "bible" book or some other way to monetize the wunderful new language that only he needs.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554288)

Fscking linguistic prescriptivists...

You know what it means, right? And everyone else knows what it means, right? So, shut the fuck up and let the natural change and evolution of language take its course.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554380)

Actually, the grandparent poster did not know what it meant. He assumed that it meant "a truly cogent...", but it seems that the author meant "Java performs well." The author chose a confusing word in order to write in passive voice. That's two mistakes in one.

Re:Uh... (5, Interesting)

snookums (48954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554366)

"Prepend" isn't a word either, but technical people use it a lot because there is a specific meaning there that needs a word -- to append at the beginning. Strictly speaking you could use "prefix" as a verb, but that word has a connotation of adding a small fixed string to the beginning of one or more items. "Prefix all international phone numbers with a + symbol." "Prepend the header before sending the request."

Similarly there is a need for a concise expression meaning "of adequate performance" without stretching to "high-performance" (especially since High Performance Computing [wikipedia.org] has a specific meaning of its own). Unfortunately, in the modern language of hyperbole, terms like "adequate" and "acceptable" have negative connotations along the lines of "not really good enough but better than nothing". So, we, as an industry, have invented a jargon word "performant" to express the idea that a thing has a level of performance sufficient that you don't need to worry about it and can look for optimisations elsewhere in your system.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554394)

I'm told some dialects of English—that spoken on the Indian subcontinent, for example—do, in fact have the word "prepend," actually.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554760)

Who exactly gives anyone the power to make up new words anyway? Language is as it is used. Period. We do need some standards, but when the meaning is clear from the context, what more do you need? There was a time when compute wasn't a word. Hell, English wasn't even a language not that long ago (as it is spoken today).

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554704)

"Performant" is not even a word.

Well, "performant" is a word in French and in Dutch, and it exactly means what you'd think it means.

Two things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554050)

One, no one is going to program in a language named Mirah. Perhaps if it was named M...

Two, there are already several better languages written for JVM.

Proof Reading? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554058)

"So if your [sic] finding you are loosing [sic] your marbles with the geological pace of Java production I implore you to give it a go."

At least this implies more time was spent on their development than their website.

Looks almost as nice as JRuby, but not quite. (2)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554096)

If someone wants to invent a language, why make it so very very close to an existing popular language?

Re:Looks almost as nice as JRuby, but not quite. (1)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554214)

Agreed. The continuous wheel reinventing that goes on is so tiresome.

Re:Looks almost as nice as JRuby, but not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554662)

Yes... You should really take a nap dear. The world apologizes.

Re:Looks almost as nice as JRuby, but not quite. (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554274)

Because it compiles down to native Java, without any of the JRuby overhead.

Re:Looks almost as nice as JRuby, but not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554442)

it is not only the language, it is also the compiler chain that is cool about Mirah

Why Mirah instead of Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JRuby (5, Insightful)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554108)

Mirah looks to me so far like a waste of effort. It has somewhat nice syntax, granted, but if you really want to use Ruby syntax with the JVM, there already is something that does that: JRuby.

If you just want simplified syntax, Groovy is just as simple and looks more familiar to Java programmers.

If you want simplified syntax and powerful new programming tricks, Scala and Clojure do this far better. If you ignore the Scala libraries and half its features, you get everything that Mirah was designed to do.

The language designers should do a better job explaining why this is worth paying attention to.

Re:Why Mirah instead of Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JR (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554260)

From what I gathered on their website, Mirah was created by one of the main JRuby developers in order to create a language that fits in better with the JVM capabilities and Java ecosystem than a strait port of Ruby. The end result should offer better performance and cleaner integration with existing Java code then JRuby, while providing nicer syntax than Java.

Groovy is slow as snot, and I wouldn't use it for anything other than perhaps a user scripting language for a java application, and even for that I think there are better options. No clue how Mirah compares to Scala. That was my first question as well.

Re:Why Mirah instead of Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JR (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554270)

All of those require extra runtime jars. Mirah emits java byte code with no dependencies other than the jvm. Mirah, having the benefit of going directly to the jvm is MUCH faster than JRuby, but less flexible at runtime. Mirah attempts to make the design time eperience as fun and fast as Ruby, but with the runtime performance of pure java. (oh, and the primary guy behind JRuby, Charles Nutter aka headius, is also behind Mirah)

Re:Why Mirah instead of Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554432)

Mirah is from the JRuby guys (it actually shares JRuby's parser). It's main advantage over Groovy, Scala, and Clojure (aside from Ruby-like syntax ;-) it that it compiles to pure Java byte-code without requiring an additional runtime library. An original motivation for experimenting with Duby was to make it easier for Ruby programmers to contribute to the JRuby core.

Re:Why Mirah instead of Scala, Clojure, Groovy, JR (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554452)

JRuby and Groovy are primarily dynamic languages.

Scala significantly extends the Java object model. Consequently, only a few basic Scala notions map directly to Java and can be used from there. A lot of advanced stuff is not easily accessible.

Clojure is Lisp - 'nuff said.

Mirah seems to be mainly about syntactic sugar. Judging by the few samples on the front page, it brings Java roughly to the level of C# 4, except with a nicer syntax. But it's still strongly typed (unless you use "dynamic"), and its notions, such as classes and methods, map one-to-one to corresponding Java ones.

Obligatory... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554112)

Yo I heard you like turds so I put a turd on your turd so you can use crap while you use crap!

Groovy? (1)

zmughal (1343549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554116)

How is this any different than using Groovy or even JRuby?

Re:Groovy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554532)

Unlike JRuby, it compiles to statically typed byte-code that enables the JVM to more aggressively optimize. Unlike Groovy, the compiled byte-code does not rely on an additional runtime library.

(Duby (which became Mirah) was largely originally an experiment to enable Ruby programmers to more easily contribute to the JRuby core.)

Uh... isnt that Groovy? (3, Interesting)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554122)

Doesn't Groovy and Grails already do that? Speaking as a LAMP developer who uses Groovy/grails, I figured that WAS Java's answer cause I'm having a blast and dumping PHP like a hot potato.

What about Jython? (2)

mickwd (196449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554136)

If the goal is "to place a friendly face on Java through the implementation of a syntax whose primary concern is developer friendliness (think Ruby/Python/Groovy)", then perhaps the "route of least surprise" would be to offer some assistance to Jython [wikipedia.org] (python running on Java), as it's been around for over a decade already, but seems to have been a bit neglected in the past couple of years.

I'm pretty sure there is an existing implementation of Ruby, too.

Re:What about Jython? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554148)

Jython will grow organically if people like it. If they dont they it won't. Easily solved.

Re:What about Jython? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554282)

Reminds me of when they ported ColdFusion to Java because a) they wanted to reach more platforms and b) J2EE was such a pain in the ass.

Re:What about Jython? (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554664)

My understanding is that Mirah is designed to compile down to Java byte code, while Jython runs a Python interpreter on top of the JVM. There are a number of philosophical and technical differences between these paradigms.

Guess it depends on how old you are (3, Insightful)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554150)

well...what languages you started with. Looking at that, the c++ based code is perfectly readable, but I can't make heads or tails of the other. In fact, reminds me of perl and objectiveC - just start hitting all those shifted characters - they each signify something special.

Am waiting for :
Draw Pacman;
Draw Ghosts;
Ghosts chase pacman;
Pacman follows joystick movement;

Re:Guess it depends on how old you are (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554208)

No, it depends on what you know and how educated you are. I'm sorry but you give older programmers a bad name.

Re:Guess it depends on how old you are (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554252)

Try applescript.

What you want is a version of it that has enough performance and capability to be a full application language, which the current implementation patently does not.

Ruby syntax is fun? (2, Interesting)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554176)

Is it just me who finds ruby even more cryptic than perl? Reading why's poignant guide [uniqpath.com] , I loved the presentation of the book, and really wanted to love the language, but every time he said "read this code out loud, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?" all I could think of was "you, my dear little cartoon foxy friend, have clearly been snorting too much of the good white stuff. I'm going back to python now" :-(

Re:Ruby syntax is fun? (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554354)

I strongly prefer ruby to perl (despite that I current make my living doing perl dev), but I couldn't stand Why's Poignant Guide. Found the Dave Thomas book vastly better.

Re:Ruby syntax is fun? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554378)

More to the point, this Ruby-style syntax is a hell of a lot easier to write and understand than Java's verbosity.

Re:Ruby syntax is fun? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554624)

Strangely, I find it harder to understand but easier to write... I think it's all down to experience anyway.

what. ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554186)

Just what the world needs. Java is sooooo complicated. Can't someone please make it friendlier, because learning another language will make my life soooo much better. (written while learning Objective-C after holding out for years. I guess C and C++ just weren't different enough for those narcissists addicted to thinking different)

Re:what. ever. (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554328)

Can't be helped. Every time someone takes a crap another offshoot of C seems to appear.

Re:what. ever. (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554398)

Objective-C and C++ were created at the roughly same time, with the early work done without any knowledge of each other. OPPC (the early version of Objective-C) was written around 1981-82. "C with Classes" (the early version of C++) was written around 1979-83. The first books documenting Objective C and C++ were released in 1986 and 1985 respectively.Objective-C was standardized (as part of OpenStep) in 1994, while C++ became an ISO standard in 1998.

Apple didn't choose to use it because C++ wasn't different enough; they chose to use it because that is what the NextStep was written with back when Objective-C and C++ were both still in their infancy.

I prefer C++ syntax (3, Interesting)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554204)

Yes, that's right, I prefer C++ syntax and coding style. Efficient, does exactly what I tell it to and makes sense in my head. All this Python/Ruby etc just makes my head blow up. I often code in those languages and I see them as very useful (and easy to work with), but I still prefer C++ syntax.

Re:I prefer C++ syntax (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554390)

I prefer C++ syntax myself, but Java's take on it is /shit/. Between the two, I'll take Bjarne's language any day.

Dumbing down programming (1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554238)

Java is C++ for dummies. Mirah is Java for morons. It is a shame the programming world has forgotten about Scheme. The programming state of the art hasn't improved in 20 years and isn't going anywhere. Python is vile.

Re:Dumbing down programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554302)

You really should take a look at clojure.

Re:Dumbing down programming (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554314)

Java? Do you mean the language itself or the modern frameworks which have buried the language under a ton of various XML files?

Re:Dumbing down programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554682)

XML files? Those are so last year; annotations are this year's truly cogent alternative. Not sure which is worse though; coding in Java, coding in XML, coding in annotations, or setting myself on fire.

Re:Dumbing down programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554332)

You sound like you have some clever new ideas. Perhaps you'd like to share?

hahah what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554400)

Java is performant

[citation needed] And no, not to some microbenchmark that shows some super-specialized test case taking advantage of a JVM optimization where some looped method call in Java was faster than a looped method call in C++. For example, rewrite something like x264 and show that you can get even half to 2/3rds the performance in pure Java (no cheating using C or assembly libraries) and then you might have a case for "performant".

Re:hahah what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554548)

Someone needs to mod this up.

It make no sense, outside some trivial examples, to claim Java is near C++ performance in any broad spectrum sense. It doesn't even give you sufficient low level control to manage what you need to manage to extract the most performance from the machine.

I don't think nVidia's graphics drivers are going to be written in C++ any time soon, for example. Or performance critical parts of the kernel.

Ruby and LEAST SURPRISE? (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554412)

This I don't get. If you want "developer friendliness" and "least surprise", use a syntax with the (relatively) minimal set of keywords/tokens to accomplish your task. Ruby has basically incorporated the syntax and conventions of every major programming language of the last 30 years...

And I guess you could call it "developer friendliness" if you want to let people freeform program in whatever style they want, with no two developers tending to use the same syntax for the same implementation - but at this point in my career (ie having worked for half a dozen companies and realizing what you write now may exist for decades), I consider a major component of "developer friendliness" as "easily comprehensible and maintainable by the next developer".

Easy Elegant Syntax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554418)

And when they make a compiler that understands natural language, we will learn that programmers can't speak that, either.

Why is ruby considered beautiful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554428)

It seems like such a subjective thing. Why are people obsessed with syntax?

Eight Words (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554430)

Java is performant, widely adopted and eminently portable...

So much bullshit in just eight words.

Re:Eight Words (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554606)

Probably written by a Netbeans developer who thinks Matisse is the Bee's knees and who also thinks that a refactor fucking up all your xml files is ok.

Re:Eight Words (1)

Exclamation mark! (1961328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554800)

I think the above comment said it best: Java? Do you mean the language itself or the modern frameworks which have buried the language under a ton of various XML files? Java itself ain't that bad. The frameworks and XML hell designed by vendors to lock you in... definitely awful. Enterprise software is the problem.

"You people are idiots" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35554462)

"You people are idiots" is my only comment to them really. Stop inventing languages and APIs nobody will use.

Pry my curly brackets from my cold dead hands (0)

AC-x (735297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554514)

Some nice coding shortcuts but I still think curly brackets are the best way to denote blocks, anyone got arguments against using them?

Define "performant" (1)

yk4ever (1110821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554614)

Performant, you say?
Java has almost C-like speed when it comes to numerical computations, that's true.
But what about huge memory overhead? or long startup times?

And, on an unrelated note, I'm totally with the "Ruby is insane, Python's way cleaner" crowd. Syntax must be compact, but strict.

Is it me only liking static langs? (1)

rickla (641376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554694)

Groovy is fine and this is just more of that I guess, but although I like grails, I am Mr. static. I get code completion, errors discovered before my users, and I am not sure what the difficulty with the C++ syntax is. Things like groovy closures etc look different but I think are hard to maintain and reuse. I even precompile jsp to avoid user discovered issues.

Re:Is it me only liking static langs? (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554788)

I think, all other things being equal, a static code base is also easier to get into when you're new to it. Especially (but not only) because the tool support is much better or more thorough.

Yes, but Java is tied to Oracle (0)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554792)

Yes, but as long as it is tied to Oracle, I don't give a fuck one about the dead platform that is Java. That applies to all the decent Java-based languages out there: Scala, Groovy, JRuby, JPython ...

Too bad everybody hates the .NET Framework because Scala would have a better home there. Yeah go ahead and mod me down, but I mean it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...