<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Phil Dawes' Stuff - Latest Comments in Java cage rattling</title><link>http://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/java_cage_rattling/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:06:37 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Java cage rattling</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2006/08/02/java-cage-rattling/#comment-2753429</link><description>&lt;blockquote&gt;pure “Java programmers” are only a step up from VB weenies ;-) and many have no concept of functional languages except that “they’re a bit hard to write in”&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Blimey - if that's not a troll I don't know what is!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Dawes</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:06:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Java cage rattling</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2006/08/02/java-cage-rattling/#comment-2753428</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think that's the point of the article: pure "Java programmers" are only a step up from VB weenies ;-) and many have no concept of functional languages except that "they're a bit hard to write in". And as for declarative/logical languages...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ian Rogers</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Java cage rattling</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2006/08/02/java-cage-rattling/#comment-2753427</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Java is an imperative OO language and should not be compared to functional languages.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">James Burton</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:03:11 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>