RE: JIT-compilation for OCaml?

[Dave Berry <dave@kal.com>]

This view seems extreme to me.  Certainly the Java type system has faults --
lack of generics being one, lack of enumerated types another, and various
other points as well.  But surely Unicode is a useful de facto standard?
Using C syntax was a strong point -- it made the language familiar to many
people.  IMO Java syntax does avoid many of the worst aspects of C syntax
(e.g. pointers).  It's surely portable: JVMs run on many systems.  It
certainly isn't slow to compile, and a previous poster suggested that with
modern compilers run-time performance is not too bad.  You can access C or
C++ functions from Java using JNI (although you seem to be in two minds as
to whether C compatibility is desirable or irrelevant).

And this omits it's plus points, especially its utility in net programming.
Its security model is not the last word, but it's better than C, C++ or
Eiffel!  And its use of byte code ensures portability of compiled apps.

Dave.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Max Skaller [mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:50
To: Markus Mottl

	It has a serious faulty static
type system, idiotic object orientation, no generics, isn't
compatible with C, uses the worst features of C/C++ syntax,
is inefficient to compile, load, and run, doesn't interface
well, uses Unicode instead of ISO-10646, has a hodge podge library,
is less portable than C, C++ or Eiffel, stuffed up finalisation ...

	Surely, Java is the worst modern language around.
It is an inexcusably travesty, when so much good theory is
around, and C compatibility is not required.