🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Sep 1995, Matthew Kennel wrote:

> In what substantial way is Java C-like?

From what I've seen/heard (from Sun's Web site), Java was designed to be 
like C++ without the "dangers" of C++ (features/misfeatures that are 
usually misunderstood, unsafe, or usually not used).

> Somehow people are convinced of two things that I don't adhere to:
> 
> 	*  Java is very C-like, but better
> 
> 	*  Being C-like is automatically a plus.

Being C-like obviously has an advantage -- the millions of C programmers 
out there (that's probably why C++ has succeeded -- it is *not* a great 
OO language).

> I think it's a manefestation of the very foolish notion that "langauges that
> superficially appear like C source code on a terminal are good, and ones
> that don't are bad."

Obviously, you dislike C's syntax. For those who *like* C's syntax (but 
possibly dislike C's dangers), looking like C is a good thing. After all, 
most of C is fine (as a procedural language), but *certain* things are 
dangerous and undesirable.

As for the latter part of your statement, I have to disagree. Show me a 
syntax that I like and I will accept it. For example, I learned LISP over 
the summer. Its syntax is completely different. (However, I don't think 
it would work particularly well as a general programming language, but 
maybe I'm wrong.)

Innovations in syntax are good. What I'm looking for is a language that 
is as expressive as possible, concise as possible, clear as possible, and 
safe as possible. I don't think that it's impossible to combine all the 
attributes.

- Trung