Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Depends. How good are the .NET libraries? [I hope to God they're 
>> better than the Java ones!]
> 
> They're actually surprisingly good for what they do. Far, far better 
> than the Java stuff.

That's not hard. :-S

> Much of the Java stuff was designed to be 
> oh-so-flexible, with three or four layers of abstraction between 
> "socket" and "network connection", for example, so much so that it's 
> almost unusable. It might have been worthwhile if people actually wrote 
> code that was as flexible as the specs, but that never happened either.

Tell me, have *you* ever seen a non-empty catch{} block in Java? ;-)

BTW, I especially love the way Java, an "object oriented language", uses 
lots of procedural techniques in it's class library. Neat...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message