Dive Into Java?

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

> While I do not love java, this is one of the dumbest statements
> for a while in this NG - even though it is not meant to be too
> serious.

Thanks for your concern. I didn't really state this from dumbness
though.

BTW, definitely consider looking up "irony" and "emoticon" in an
encyclopedia of your choice.
 
> C++ has a lot of wicked, complicated features like overloadable
> assignment statements and so on, misses GC, and is in general
> semantically very overloaded. 

Maybe. Though I think there /are/ languages with more complicated
features, with an imperfomant GC that can't be controlled, or more
semantically overloaded.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by "semantically overloaded" in the
case of C++? E. g. the :: and . operators where one could do both?

> All that make programming it a real PITA, as you permanently are
> at risk loosing your feet through self-inflicted gun-shot-wounds.

It can be quite convenient. Not as convenient as Python, but it's
not impossible at all to write working code without hundreds of
bugs. But that's what it reads like in your posting.

> While Java is a language that makes it difficult to produce nice
> or beautiful code, 

because it wanted to be new and good but took over much of C++'s
syntax and made it even weirder,

> it certainly is a language that hinders you to shoot in your own
> foot really badly. 

No, it is a language that forbids almost everything from C++ which
could be dangerous, and at the same time reimplements some of those
features "under the hood": E. g. no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely

Regards,


Björn

-- 
BOFH excuse #188:

..disk or the processor is on fire.