From: David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:30:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200403020730.i227U1tg071218@adat.davidashen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58c9a09539806ad0e5d6c0b07b3c7c89@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
> But just to tell you what I mean, I feel that limbo lacks those
> features that make Java a complex laguage, yet it retains
> those that make it easy to reuse code. That's arguable, of course.
But Java is a SIMPLER language than limbo.
It has fewer basic structures and orthogonal notions in the language.
It does not use ugly idea of separating module interfaces from
module implementations.
It does not use kludges like 'cyclic' to compensate for deficiencies
of the underlying virtual machine.
Yet it is more powerful in expressing algorithms. Things like closures
or message polymorphism are natural and easy to express in Java, while
either not possible or inconvenient in limbo.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-02 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <f62d09b11d1f097b3f4b5f6b70b65ea5@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 6:58 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 7:06 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:08 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 7:14 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:30 ` David Tolpin [this message]
2004-03-02 7:37 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:48 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:50 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 20:50 ` Andrew Simmons
2004-03-02 20:56 ` matt
2004-03-02 20:57 ` ron minnich
2004-03-02 12:44 ` Bruce Ellis
2004-03-02 7:50 ` lucio
2004-03-02 7:56 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:12 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 8:12 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:45 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 8:51 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:06 ` David Presotto
2004-03-02 9:14 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:26 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 15:04 ` rog
2004-03-02 15:12 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:03 ` C H Forsyth
2004-03-02 16:06 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:24 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:35 ` C H Forsyth
2004-03-02 17:18 ` andrey mirtchovski
2004-03-02 12:39 ` Bruce Ellis
2004-03-02 8:02 David Presotto
2004-03-02 8:20 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:55 ` David Presotto
2004-03-02 9:20 ` Rob Pike
[not found] <918d202b192f1bcb8dd969285010a329@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 8:37 ` David Tolpin
[not found] <d02d8014f5f4b58c6863ec7a3cd652ee@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 9:07 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 10:04 ` lucio
2004-03-02 10:08 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 11:35 ` matt
2004-03-02 18:38 ` boyd, rounin
2004-03-02 19:03 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 19:10 ` rog
2004-03-02 19:08 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 15:03 rog
2004-03-03 7:21 YAMANASHI Takeshi
2004-03-03 7:29 ` Kenji Okamoto
2004-03-03 7:31 ` Kenji Okamoto
2004-03-03 7:37 YAMANASHI Takeshi
2004-03-03 12:29 ` boyd, rounin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200403020730.i227U1tg071218@adat.davidashen.net \
--to=dvd@davidashen.net \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).