> Except it was. It was you saying this.
I said "strategy" not "feature". That adopting a feature that a less successful language had invented or adopted is not the same as adopting the strategy of a less successful language was precisely my point about buying a sofa not being the same as "catching up" to a hoarder.
I said "we shouldn't be a hoarder", not "we shouldn't get a sofa".
> Now you're suddenly saying "we're aware that a non-tiny minority of developers prefer richer languages, and so we accommodate them, too" and "oh yes, we've been thinking of these features since 1991".
But Java started adopting ML features over twenty years ago. Where do you think we got generics from? The discussion about lambdas and generics between Gosling and Joy, even predating Java's release are Java lore (https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...).
> Than whatever your ever-changing definition is. Java, thankfully, is no longer a small/smaller language, and is rapidly adopting actual useful features, including those from lesser products.
My definition isn't ever-changing, it's just relative. Being a relatively small language means, at the same time, not adopting the strategy of richer languages and adding select features but at a slower pace. This was Gosling's "a wolf in sheep's clothing" strategy since the very start: a very innovative, fast-moving runtime (where most of the benefits to the software's end user are hidden) wrapped in a non-threatening, conservative language. Conservative doesn't mean frozen and relatively small doesn't mean never-growing, but they do mean not adopting relatively rich fast-changing language strategy either. Our strategy has worked well for us, and yes, I still think it's silly to suggest we should change it because languages that aren't doing as well have a different strategy.
Even Java's GC and JIT came from Lisp and Smalltalk, but not the strategy (which was Gosling's point that these helpful features were part of thretening products).
I said "strategy" not "feature". That adopting a feature that a less successful language had invented or adopted is not the same as adopting the strategy of a less successful language was precisely my point about buying a sofa not being the same as "catching up" to a hoarder.
I said "we shouldn't be a hoarder", not "we shouldn't get a sofa".
> Now you're suddenly saying "we're aware that a non-tiny minority of developers prefer richer languages, and so we accommodate them, too" and "oh yes, we've been thinking of these features since 1991".
But Java started adopting ML features over twenty years ago. Where do you think we got generics from? The discussion about lambdas and generics between Gosling and Joy, even predating Java's release are Java lore (https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...).
> Than whatever your ever-changing definition is. Java, thankfully, is no longer a small/smaller language, and is rapidly adopting actual useful features, including those from lesser products.
My definition isn't ever-changing, it's just relative. Being a relatively small language means, at the same time, not adopting the strategy of richer languages and adding select features but at a slower pace. This was Gosling's "a wolf in sheep's clothing" strategy since the very start: a very innovative, fast-moving runtime (where most of the benefits to the software's end user are hidden) wrapped in a non-threatening, conservative language. Conservative doesn't mean frozen and relatively small doesn't mean never-growing, but they do mean not adopting relatively rich fast-changing language strategy either. Our strategy has worked well for us, and yes, I still think it's silly to suggest we should change it because languages that aren't doing as well have a different strategy.
Even Java's GC and JIT came from Lisp and Smalltalk, but not the strategy (which was Gosling's point that these helpful features were part of thretening products).