On Oct 19, 2:14 pm, Bob Nystrom <
rnyst...@google.com> wrote:
> As LINQ itself shows, it isn't necessary to have declarative *syntax* in
> order to have a declarative *API*. LINQ itself can fully be used without
> using the SQL keyword syntax they added to C#:
Your example conveniently didn't do a join or select a new anonymous
type.
> 1. Different users can use different libraries that fit their uses. Everyone
> isn't using SQL, so "join" "select", et. al. aren't the right vocabulary for
> all users.
SQL is universal and this isn't even about SQL. It's about a general
purpose querying syntax.
> 2. Libraries evolve faster than languages. When you're talking client-side
> web languages, they evolve *much* faster.
Much better at the language level. Client-side web languages evolve
much faster??? Now you're just making stuff up. There is ONE AND ONLY
one client-side web language, and it has hardly evolved at all. That's
the problem.
> 3. You can deprecate a library. It's very hard, if not impossible, to remove
> a language feature.
Strawman argument.
“Its syntax, while uninspiring, is familiar and easy to pick up for
millions of programmers,” Nystrom wrote.
Yup. Currently, not is it only uninspiring, it's downright offensive
how little it aspires to. You guys are getting your asses handed to
you by Oracle because of Java, and you're fiddling around trying to
appease a bunch of JavaScript "programmers" who don't even know their
language sucks. Who exactly is this latest google "throw some shit up
and see if it sticks" project/language supposed to appeal to? I can
tell you right now, there are a lot of Microsoft programmers out there
looking for an alternative, but they'll see this and simply say, yep,
those clowns just don't get it. (Especially if they've already seen
the Android SDK.)