Content deleted Content added
Line 153:
I agree with you. The standard way of defining a listener in Java is by using interface EventListener. The standard way of defining a property is by following the JavaBeans specification. etc. And ''it's pretty obvious'' that the reason for which the Java language intentionally lacks some specific syntax for these features, is that they can be easily implemented in the class library instead, so that the language can be kept simple. Therefore, I think it definitely makes little sense to talk about the programming language without saying that, in a real-world application, you will typically make use of some BCL class instead of a language-specific keyword. --[[Special:Contributions/151.75.53.61|151.75.53.61]] ([[User talk:151.75.53.61|talk]]) 03:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
'''SlothMcCarty''' that is very well put. However, there exists some "core" libraries or types for both languages which could be considered part of the language. Some are even mentioned in the respective language specs. My feeling is that these should be allowed in regardless of specific syntactical support. For instance, the ''class'' type of Java and the ''Type'' type of C#. As I see it, using the criteria you suggested, we should get rid of the "platforms" table as well as the collections among others. I would suggest a criteria for the rest: Good explanation contrasting the languages should follow each table section. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 19:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to split the table(s) into sections which allow.
== Edit ==
| |||