<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The future of HTML, XML, and Java look similar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar</link>
	<description>blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dushyanth Inguva</title>
		<link>http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar/comment-page-1#comment-38461</link>
		<dc:creator>Dushyanth Inguva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar#comment-38461</guid>
		<description>I am entirely in the platform camp. (As also mentioned in my blog) Stretching Java to add more features will only result in people waiving their backward compatibility flags and we ending up with half baked features.

I&#039;d rather see more languages on the Java platform. If some features of the platform cannot be accessed directly by Java that is fine. But, we won&#039;t be as constrained to extend the platform for other languages. And, whats with &quot;thy shalt always code in java and kiss java&#039;s ass&quot; mentality going on with people. We all like Java and it is good for certain uses. But, you certainly don&#039;t have to code every goddamn thing in Java. Use the right tool for the job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am entirely in the platform camp. (As also mentioned in my blog) Stretching Java to add more features will only result in people waiving their backward compatibility flags and we ending up with half baked features.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d rather see more languages on the Java platform. If some features of the platform cannot be accessed directly by Java that is fine. But, we won&#8217;t be as constrained to extend the platform for other languages. And, whats with &#8220;thy shalt always code in java and kiss java&#8217;s ass&#8221; mentality going on with people. We all like Java and it is good for certain uses. But, you certainly don&#8217;t have to code every goddamn thing in Java. Use the right tool for the job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djo.mos</title>
		<link>http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar/comment-page-1#comment-38460</link>
		<dc:creator>djo.mos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar#comment-38460</guid>
		<description>Hi,
I&#039;m on the platform side ... Java is getting more and more over-bloated with new features, and event with all the proposals being included in Java 7, it will still remain far far behind the slick language that Scala is ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
I&#8217;m on the platform side &#8230; Java is getting more and more over-bloated with new features, and event with all the proposals being included in Java 7, it will still remain far far behind the slick language that Scala is &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar/comment-page-1#comment-38459</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://almaer.com/blog/the-future-of-html-xml-and-java-look-similar#comment-38459</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m in the language group. I really like Scala, but I work with a couple of thousand Java developers. It is unrealistic for them to all learn Scala or Groovy. However, they were all able to pick-up generics and annotations, and I think they could handle BGGA closures. So even though I might enjoy just switching over to Scala, I&#039;d rather see the Java language improved so it can benefit more folks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m in the language group. I really like Scala, but I work with a couple of thousand Java developers. It is unrealistic for them to all learn Scala or Groovy. However, they were all able to pick-up generics and annotations, and I think they could handle BGGA closures. So even though I might enjoy just switching over to Scala, I&#8217;d rather see the Java language improved so it can benefit more folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
