Comment Re:Byte Code Is "Open" (Score -1) 519
you can construct a language how ever you want and have it compile to Byte Code
It's been shown already that the Java byte code specification heavily favors a Java-style language, making it cumbersome to support a variety of others. In contrast, Microsoft designed .NET specifically to abstract out as much of the human-interface language as possible. One only as to look at the 40+ languages (available or in development for .NET) to see how "language friendly" .NET's design is http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx/. In the 10+ years Java has been around, can you name any serious "alternative" language?
I think Java is better served if Sun calls the shots on it
This goes against the open source philosophy that the majority of successfully innovative programmers believe in.
I'd rather them or a small group of people call the shots on the language
This is the same thing as the committee that you, a few paragraphs above, rambled would stiffle "great artists". The same artists that you don't want to have a voice in things.
It's been shown already that the Java byte code specification heavily favors a Java-style language, making it cumbersome to support a variety of others. In contrast, Microsoft designed
I think Java is better served if Sun calls the shots on it
This goes against the open source philosophy that the majority of successfully innovative programmers believe in.
I'd rather them or a small group of people call the shots on the language
This is the same thing as the committee that you, a few paragraphs above, rambled would stiffle "great artists". The same artists that you don't want to have a voice in things.
