Dave Berry wrote:
> 
> By "component", I mean an object with methods, asynchronous events, and
> settable properties, working in containers that know how to embed these
> components.  The origin of this approach was (I think) the Andrew project at
> CMU, many years ago.  ML modules are different.

	OK. I think we'd agree roughly on what a 'component' is.

> As for whether these are "right" or "wrong", this depends on whether you
> want to work in a small purist community or interact with the wider world.

	That isn't how I see it. Pragmatically, we must use available
technology, even if it is faulty, since _all_ the available technology
is faulty.

	For me, the issue is to recognize the flaws, and work 
towards fixing them, or finding a better solution -- probably at 
the same time as continuing to use better understood but flawed
technology when the commerical risks don't justify trying something
more experimental.

	To this end, I can understand why you might choose Java 
as an implementation language: but I think a large part of that choice
is driven by non-expert perceptions (of, for example, shareholders and
clients), rather than by technical evaluations.

	Perhaps by expertise biases my opinion. For example,
a lot of Windows code is developed using MFC, which I believe
is pretty bad. I'd never bother, since I can develop similar but
better functionality as required more quickly than learn the
quirks of an ugly system.

	Except in the case of applets, I'd never use Java,
since I know C++ well enough that I'd gain almost nothing
from it's 'advantages', and lose a lot of the advantages
of C++. More likely, I'd use Ocaml if at all possible :-)

> To date, OCaml has emphasised interoperability (e.g. with C), which is one
> of the reasons that its been successful.

	Yes, I agree. And this is one of the major components
of the design of C++: it is simultaneously a strength and a serious
weakness. My Felix language generates C++, but provides a saner
syntax/semantics (at least, that is the idea); it provides
much better interoperability than Ocaml. Some things are lost
of course!

	 But Java is not compatible with C or C++, so there was no need 
to make a language with so many of the faults it has. IMHO. :-)
Instead, the designers should have looked at the kinds of languages
researchers were working with (like ML), and provided as version of
them with a 'simplified' syntax. At least that's what I would have done,
(and indeed _is_ what I'm doing with Felix :-)

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net