This has been demonstrated on several different compilers, using nothing other than standard libraries.

[citation needed]

On the contrary, if you don't think Java is just as complex, it's you that hasn't understood at least one of these languages.

It is not complex by any reasonable definition, unless you're comparing it to BASIC or something. Part of the reason Java is ugly is that it's so simple, in fact - it eschews syntax sugar and various conveniences that'd make the code shorter and prettier.

Let me guess: you're a Java developer.

Java may have fewer features, but that doesn't stop the developers from getting stuff done.

This is a stupid argument. You could just as easily say, "Assembly language may have fewer features, but that doesn't stop the developers from getting stuff done."

In Java, there is only the one way of writing things.

Yeah, and it's ugly and complex.

Kids?

Yeah, because speaking out in Russia is so encouraged.

Peter Molyneux is that you?

The same one that dictated the IRS to audit and kill off as many tea party people and groups as it can while not doing the same to leftist orgs.

things_that_never_happened.txt

So do those dictionaries you have access to define Luddite as anyone who doesn't want yet another electronic device that they have to worry about?

But if you're actually trying to understand what an author is saying, and there's this word popping up a dozen times that you don't know, simply guessing what it means is missing an opportunity to learn something.

Or, you know, you could actually think about what you're reading and deduce the definition of the word from the context.

This is just a lot of stupid nitpicking. Oh sure, if you want to get into graduate-level details, then if you say the earth goes around the sun you're wrong. But you're not nearly as wrong as if you say it's the other way around.

Education is the process of telling smaller and smaller lies.

I do expect every developer to have a basic understanding of cryptography

Why?

So? I've been programming professionally for 18 years now and I couldn't answer that either. Why? Because I have never, ever had to deal with encryption code.

Was "knowledge of public/private key encryption" listed in the job requirements?

You're kinda entirely missing the point of structured programming. In your other examples, the goto is constrained. The return statement is a goto back to the call of the function. The if statement is a goto to either the inside of the block or the end of the block.

What Dijkstra was complaining about was unrestricted gotos. If you can goto anywhere in the code willy-nilly then it becomes much harder for someone reading your code to follow your logic. And it becomes much harder for you to follow your own logic when you inevitably have to come back to the code a year later.