Neal Gafter: Personally, I believe rumors of Java's demise are greatly exaggerated. We should think of Java as a living language, and strive to eliminate much of the accidental complexity of Java programs. I believe it is worth adding support for closures and control abstraction, to reduce such complexity of both the sequential and concurrent aspects of our programs. At the same time, for completely new code bases, we should also consider (and continue to develop) newer languages such as Scala, which benefit from the lessons of Java.
The thinking behind my switching of sides is simple, and non-technical. While many evaluate the various proposals based solely on their technical merits, I base my decision on the roles people play in the Java ecosystem.
It's one thing for an outsider such as Bruce Tate, or even Bruce Eckel to run around saying Java is dead. It's something completely different for Mr. Javac (I still think of Neal Gafter as Mr. Javac) to say the same thing.
Have you seen the stream of people leaving the Java development team, be they program managers, lead developers, or evangelists? This happened after every major release of Java, starting with JDK 1.1. Sure you can always hire new people to fill the old roles, but it's not the same. They have different visions, styles, and agendas.
The bottom line, for me at least, is that we should not bite the hands that feed us. For the day when the last JDK developer leaves the room, Java is truly dead.
Please, Uncle Neal, give us closures. "And we shall like them!"
Previous Topic
