|
As a proponent of language change, reading the arguments against change is always interesting. For me, its all about finding the right language changes.
Group one is "minor fixes to existing language features". This includes tweaks to the annotation system and reified generics.
Group two is "features that increase compile-time safety". This includes method references and better null handling. Aspects of closures and properties also increase compile-time safety.
Group three is "major new features that complement the existing language". This is the most controversial group. It includes possibilities such as limited operator overloading, properties, variable substituted strings, array notation to access collections and closures.
Personally, I believe that the Java language can quite happily absorb many items in group one. I also strongly believe that group two is vital, as compile-time safety is really the biggest gain for a statically typed language.
The real debate should be over group three. My own view is that Sun should create an JavaNextGeneration language which is 95% compatible with Java (for easy migration). But as they don't seem to want to do there has to be a choice whether to add group three features to Java. IMHO, I think the benefit is there - of course not everyone will agree.
|
java.net RSS Feeds
