ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Donald Strong" <>
Subject RE: [OT] Seeking input from the comunity at large.
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:16:11 GMT
Hi Robert,

I have to agree with David on this one. I have considered doing something
similar myself and dismissed it as probably a waste of time.

> I want to draw your opinions on a couple of questions:

> 1) What is the reason for Java's success? I postulate that the write once, run
> anywhere paradigm hasnt really happened. 
I'm sorry my friend, you are posting to a list concerned with an application that
runs on every commonly used OS. Ant is the ultimate proof that write once run 
anywhere works. Not only is the application cross platform, the build systems it
allows to be implemented are as well.

> 2) The byte code paradigm. Is it needed? Do we really need interpreted programs
> or is it just a hack to create pseudo OS agnostic constructs. (There are many
> other ways to make an OS agnostic)
There are many ways, that is true. An interpreter combined with a JIT compiler
is one of them. It has its good points, it has its warts. It has allowed new
ideas to be developed because it has taken a different approach. Such ideas
as Applets, Reflection, Beans, JSPs are concepts that, even if they existed 
prior to java, they were not main stream.

> 3) One problem many languages have gotten into is that thier keywords are
> similar to their variable names. Java got smacked by this when they created a
> new keyword assert() in JDK 1.4. Now they are gunshy about creating another
> keyword called foreach. I propose a language to prefix keywords with a symbol to
> identify them and facilitate expandability. Could you live with code like the
> following?
"Gee, this langauge would be so much better if it only had <insert favourite language
Everyone has their own version of this statement. Until languages can be extended at 
will by those who feel a feature is missing, people will continue to make this complaint.
Such a language would need a fairly simple grammar that could be easily extended, I
suspect that it would be difficult to read. To be consistant even the statements and 
variables would have to be like "plugins" so that adding new features was pretty much
the same as using the builtin features. I think Lisp is a bit like that and there was
another language ... bit more recent ... not a language really ... something else but
kinda like a language ... hmmmm.   B^)

Good luck in whatever you decide to do.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message