Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Joachim Durchholz]

Marshall Spight wrote:
> 
> Does the existence of downcasts point out a place where
> Java is lame? Absolutely. Does extra effort result from
> this lameness? Certainly. Does this extra effort cause
> bugs? Nope.

Bugs are not the only thing that I would term a "serious problem". 
Actually, I'd call everything a "serious problem" that eats up 
productivity. Of course, some problems are more serious than others; the 
absence of a good way to catch exceptions in C++ constructors (and, 
hence, that an exception thrown somewhere within a C++ constructor will 
almost inevitably leak memory) is worse than Java's ubiquitous need for 
downcasts.
But I also consider the unavailability of type inference in Java a 
"serious problem". Actually I fear that my preferences have changed from 
"static typing > run-time typing" to "type inference > run-time typing > 
explicit static typing".

> (Anyway, the situation is much better with Java generics,
> available now in prerelease form; mainsteam in the next
> major version.)

Good thing, that.
Let's just hope that having to wait a decade for Java generics was worth 
it... Java is probably the inevitable next step in my career. Well, 
there are worse languages, that's what I always tell myself (and it 
almost suffices to calm me down...)

Regards,
Jo