Le 11/04/2012 10:46, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>
>> No, I'm saying it's probably a bad idea to use the same language for
>> *every* task, regardless of how good a fit it is.
> 
> OK. But I'm sure there's quite a lot of configuration files that all
> have roughly the same characteristics, and it would be nice to not have
> to learn /another/ language every single time I want to configure
> something.

Configuration files is one task.
Reinventing the wheel has only one purpose: the ego. (well, the Ego,
with an uppercase).
When an operating system or a usual library provides a descent solution,
it is good to use it.
When there is no de facto solution, then individual solutions flourish.

But when the operating system evolved with a changing solution, havoc
are around. Windows move from *.ini files to registry in slow motion.

But configuration files is only one task.
The details of my bank's operations is not a configuration (or you are a
pervert with a twisted common sense), neither is a digital comic or a
word-processor document.

Java has a strength, which is also its weakness: usability on different
system. (it's not just portability)
It also means that an operating system specific solution cannot be used
(unless the Virtual Machine made provision for that in its specification)

That's also means that a pure Java program cannot use directly a Direct
X interface, nor the native widgets of the graphical interface. Of
course, you can, but it soon stop being runnable anywhere if you do not
write convoluted libraries to handle the cases when the direct mapping
is not available.

Post a reply to this message