>> That's not even parsable. (Indentation is significant, remember?)
>
> Yuck - I hate it when languages do that.

I thought I would hate it... but when not used in insane ways, it 
actually works quite well. I mean, most programmers indent stuff 
sensibly /anyway/, so having it be significant just means that you can 
avoid having to type a few extra delimiters.

...except in those handful of cases where how /you/ want to indent 
doesn't match what the compiler wants. /Then/ it becomes annoying.

>> Darren claims they committed to a feature freeze too soon. I don't know
>> about the low-level details of the JVM. But I gather that, say, adding
>> Java generics required lots of ugly hacks so it didn't break
>> compatibility.
>
> Guess how many ugly hacks C++ relies on to not break compatibility with
> classic library formats...

Well, yeah. But nobody tries to claim that C is a good programming la... 
oh, wait.

>> I hear there are other languages that target the JVM. Presumably you
>> still can't use any of the existing libraries though. (Not that any of
>> them are much good.)
>
> The fun is that you can. The bane is that you might have to.

LOL!

>> Oh, Haskell? Yeah, I gather a few people have tried to target the JVM
>> with it. Nothing production-grade currently exists, however.
>
> Is there any such thing as a production-grade Haskell implementation?

Sure. Several companies are using GHC to produce mission-critical (and 
often security-critical or even safety-critical) production code.

Post a reply to this message