Creating a byte[] of long size
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: instructor solution manual for Dynamics of Flight- Stability and Control, 3rd Ed by Etkin, Reid
Next: Supply AFF CAPS and hat ( www.nike-black.com )
From: ClassCastException on 29 Jul 2010 23:26 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:10 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 28-07-2010 23:09, ClassCastException wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 16-07-2010 10:17, ClassCastException wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:56:48 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> I don't think Clojure has what it takes to become a mainstream >>>>> language. >>>> >>>> Why? >>> >>> The syntax has had 50 years to become popular without making it. >> >> Er, Clojure's only been around for maybe 5 years, tops; I think rather >> less than that. >> >> If you mean Lisp syntax in general, Clojure has a bunch of >> improvements/ differences over older Lisps there, which may be enough >> to make a difference. And its assets in other areas (compiles to fast, >> widely portable bytecode, transactional memory/other concurrency >> features, FP benefits, macros, incremental development and testing at a >> REPL) could outweigh syntax issues. >> >> Keep in mind that older Lisp environments mostly required, if not >> specialized hardware, then at least rather esoteric software. >> Proprietary virtual machines/interpreters, poor library/OS support, >> emacs, etc. The typical Lisp environment of yore was totally unsuited >> to developing desktop apps or much else than command-line tools, >> command-line curiosities, and CS research papers. :-) >> >> Clojure on the other hand can a) generate decent desktop apps and b) >> generate decent web apps, one a traditionally important area and the >> other a huge current growth area. It can be used in applets (in the >> browser's JVM) and server-side (and there are already Rails-like >> frameworks based on it -- Rails will be its main competition there, in >> fact). > > Unless these features are tied to the syntax, then people will prefer a > language with those features and a more standard syntax. Perhaps. If there is one. As for tying features to syntax, macros are especially difficult to pull off well in a language with a non-Lispy syntax. The other features I mentioned are mostly not so strongly influenced by, or influencing, syntax. >> Oh, and some people LIKE the syntax. > > Sure. But not enough to make the language a success. At least for now. >>> It does not seem likely that it will now. >> >> They said that about 3D movies after almost exactly 50 years had >> elapsed since the previous round of experiments in 3D cinematography >> flopped horribly. Then James Cameron's big 3D FXtravaganza turned into >> a box- office juggernaut. Who's laughing now? > > Probably James Cameron. Oho!
From: Arne Vajhøj on 29 Jul 2010 23:57 On 29-07-2010 23:26, ClassCastException wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:10 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 28-07-2010 23:09, ClassCastException wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> On 16-07-2010 10:17, ClassCastException wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:56:48 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> I don't think Clojure has what it takes to become a mainstream >>>>>> language. >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>> >>>> The syntax has had 50 years to become popular without making it. >>> >>> Er, Clojure's only been around for maybe 5 years, tops; I think rather >>> less than that. >>> >>> If you mean Lisp syntax in general, Clojure has a bunch of >>> improvements/ differences over older Lisps there, which may be enough >>> to make a difference. And its assets in other areas (compiles to fast, >>> widely portable bytecode, transactional memory/other concurrency >>> features, FP benefits, macros, incremental development and testing at a >>> REPL) could outweigh syntax issues. >>> >>> Keep in mind that older Lisp environments mostly required, if not >>> specialized hardware, then at least rather esoteric software. >>> Proprietary virtual machines/interpreters, poor library/OS support, >>> emacs, etc. The typical Lisp environment of yore was totally unsuited >>> to developing desktop apps or much else than command-line tools, >>> command-line curiosities, and CS research papers. :-) >>> >>> Clojure on the other hand can a) generate decent desktop apps and b) >>> generate decent web apps, one a traditionally important area and the >>> other a huge current growth area. It can be used in applets (in the >>> browser's JVM) and server-side (and there are already Rails-like >>> frameworks based on it -- Rails will be its main competition there, in >>> fact). >> >> Unless these features are tied to the syntax, then people will prefer a >> language with those features and a more standard syntax. > > Perhaps. If there is one. If there is none, then one will be created. > As for tying features to syntax, macros are especially difficult to pull > off well in a language with a non-Lispy syntax. The other features I > mentioned are mostly not so strongly influenced by, or influencing, > syntax. Arne
From: ClassCastException on 30 Jul 2010 00:09 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:57:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 29-07-2010 23:26, ClassCastException wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:10 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> Unless these features are tied to the syntax, then people will prefer >>> a language with those features and a more standard syntax. >> >> Perhaps. If there is one. > > If there is none, then one will be created. Faith-based "reasoning" doesn't sway me; sorry. Show me one and then I might believe you.
From: Lew on 30 Jul 2010 07:52 ClassCastException wrote: > Well, pardon me for being more humorous than exactingly precise in a MADE- > UP EXAMPLE. You are pardoned. Go and sin no more. As for "exactingly precise", a phrase by which you hope to indicate that your comments were in some fashion related to reality and only off by the humor factor, you weren't even in the same set of physical laws. -- Lew
From: Arne Vajhøj on 30 Jul 2010 21:55
On 30-07-2010 00:09, ClassCastException wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:57:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 29-07-2010 23:26, ClassCastException wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:10 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> Unless these features are tied to the syntax, then people will prefer >>>> a language with those features and a more standard syntax. >>> >>> Perhaps. If there is one. >> >> If there is none, then one will be created. > > Faith-based "reasoning" doesn't sway me; sorry. Show me one and then I > might believe you. It is not faith based. It is strongly empirical that if a lot of people want something then somebody will create it. It is the basis of the economy in almost all the world. Arne |