[pron]

> it's perhaps fair to call it that when comparing against today's java, but not against languages that allow explicit field-by-field layout (along with padding, alignment, etc).

It's fair to call it that when comparing against any language or runtime targetting general-purpose development, but not compared to languages designed for different purposes. I agree with that.

However, we're not discussing those languages here so I don't see the relevance. I'm also sure that many statements are wrong when compared to quantum computing, but I don't think there's any need to make that qualification. It's pretty clear from the context.

[vitalyd]

>It's fair to call it that when comparing against any language or runtime targetting general-purpose development

Unless you consider, e.g., C, C++, and Rust as not general-purpose. Even C# has StructLayout where you can control the struct layout. Heck, Go and C# allow you to embed a fixed size array into a struct (this facility is not in the works for Java at the moment).

[pron]

> Unless you consider, e.g., C, C++, and Rust as not general-purpose.

Of course they're not! Even Stroustrup now calls C++ "a language for those who need or want to work as close to the hardware as possible". None of these languages -- unlike Java or Go -- has simplicity as a major design goal.

> Even C# has StructLayout where you can control the struct layout.

Yeah, that's precisely my point of giving you something you don't need. That C# does it doesn't mean it's actually significant for any significant number of programs.

> this facility is not in the works for Java at the moment

Paul Sandoz is working on something similar with one of the VarHandles variants (he said there's a prototype already), namely, indexed access to object fields, which would make this a language, rather than a JVM concern.