Yeah it depends what you’re doing. I do a lot of circuit modeling where different subsystems need to talk to each other. The solutions are either Rcs (and a bunch of custom drop logic) or a parent struct holding all the others. Both are awkward. But in other programming domains I’ve found rust pleasant.

Eh rust still has issues in some domains, e.g., when cyclic data is appropriate. You can do it, but it’s annoying. To me, Haskell is really peak programming, but I know that’s opinionated and most won’t agree.

Vscode can do cross-file renames in pretty much any language. An LSP that doesn’t support this is not doing its job.

The C Preprocessor also does all of those things. That’s expected of a preprocessor. If you say “you can write java code with a bit of extra sugar and JPlus turns it back into ‘regular’ java,” then that’s a preprocessor.

I don’t think anyone’s calling it a scam, but it’s pretty clear as an outside observer that a very specific point was questioned (about where JPlus fits into the existing ecosystem) and your replies have very little to do with that topic.

Also, your replies really do look AI-written. I know it’s hard to be sure, but humans expressing a point don’t usually write summaries in the fashion of your replies and LLMs almost always do.

Anyway, personally, if I have an existing application java program then maybe there’d be an argument to use a lightweight syntax extension to continue developing it more safely. But if I were starting a new project, whether a library or application, I would just use Scala or Kotlin from the get-go. The JVM platform is already versatile enough to get us much more than just some basic extra type safety and boilerplate generation. I’m all for static analysis tools, it’s just (again) hard to see what you get from JPlus that you can’t get from either groovy or a better language.

Your replies don’t address that at all.

I don’t need syntax highlighting for that in Haskell either. My usual highlighting just leaves them both in the default text color.

And I’m specifically arguing that the other things on your list do not inherently make code bad.

Raymond’s document does not, and I believe never has, mentioned Haskell.

I also disagree with him, given that it does recommend Java, but the quote is correct.

The only things on the bad list that I agree with are top-level type inference and small communities. And ocamls windows support is terrible. Haskell’s is more than ok now.

In Haskell, any style guide worth its salt requires annotations on top level functions, and many of them also require annotations on local bindings. This pretty effectively works around the problem.

Bad code will be unreadable in any language of course. But the other things don’t themselves make code unreadable once you’re actually familiar with the language and its ecosystem.

This is, nonobviously, the definition of the cutting stock problem. The cutting stock is your tables, from which you want to cut item-sized chunks. A table that can hold two items is just two tables that can only hold one. Mathematically, you can’t do it faster than enumerating all the possibilities and checking them. But that doesn’t help you much.

There are plentiful ready-made solutions online, or you can do it with an SMT solver if you prefer.