> Boy, have you misunderstood, because that's not at all what I said. Adopting the strategy of a less successful language is not the same as adopting a feature that a less successful language had invented or adopted.
Strange. Every time we talk about features and what other languages have, you always come up with "lesser languages" and "hoarders".
When Java ends up adopting those features, suddenly it's "we accommodate a non-minority number of developers" and "we've been thinking about this since before Java was released".
> My definition isn't ever-changing, it's just relative.
Yup.
> illy to suggest we should change it because languages that aren't doing as well have a different strategy.
...aaand there it is again. "The lesser languages".
Anyway. I'm glad it seems you're in the minority seeing how Java has picked up its development pace. Hopefully it will only accelerate and adopt more features for "non-minority number of developers we've been thinking since before 1991".
Adieu.
Strange. Every time we talk about features and what other languages have, you always come up with "lesser languages" and "hoarders".
When Java ends up adopting those features, suddenly it's "we accommodate a non-minority number of developers" and "we've been thinking about this since before Java was released".
> My definition isn't ever-changing, it's just relative.
Yup.
> illy to suggest we should change it because languages that aren't doing as well have a different strategy.
...aaand there it is again. "The lesser languages".
Anyway. I'm glad it seems you're in the minority seeing how Java has picked up its development pace. Hopefully it will only accelerate and adopt more features for "non-minority number of developers we've been thinking since before 1991".
Adieu.