5 ms·

Because writing an IDE in a real programming language wasn't hard enough. <facepalm/>

by melted 11y ago

thecatspaw 11y ago
whats wrong with java?
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I think many find Java to be quite inflexible and old compared to new programming paradigms of the last decade. It's much harder to get things done in Java than in many other languages due to how restrictive it can be (i.e. the notion that all things must be an OO class, etc). It is also not an elegant language, requiring lots of verbosity and boilerplate which tend to get in the way.
  - thecatspaw 11y ago
    While this may be true in your experience (and mine, but only in the Enterprise field) this doesnt make java any less of a "real language"
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      Yes, that is true. I was merely trying to explain the melodramatic sentiment of the comment you responded to.
  - chrisseaton 11y ago
    What new programming paradigms have been developed in the last decade? I can't think of any.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      Many of the older paradigms have been popularized and gone mainstream in the last 5 to 10 years.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I think many find Java to be quite inflexible and old compared to new programming paradigms of the last decade. (...) It is also not an elegant language, requiring lots of verbosity and boilerplate which tend to get in the way. That sure didn't stop Go from gaining popularity.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      I've found Go programs to be pretty concise, in the general case. Low on boilerplate code and high in readability (in the sense that you can see what something does relatively quickly because there is very little standard boilerplate around the functionally relevant code). It is clumsy at some stuff, and doesn't do some kinds of abstraction, so you might have to repeat yourself some, but comparing it to Java? That's not something I've seen anyone who's worked in both do, I don't think.
- vardump 11y ago
  A lot less will be wrong with Java, once "struct" value types are implemented. I guess that'll be in Java 10? This should improve performance significantly thanks to locality of reference and reduce heap footprint in the same time. Java tends to be "Star Trek Borg like" [1] in sense it's often impossible or at least cumbersome to use libraries written in it in non-JVM languages. When can we write a .so/.dylib/.dll in Java? There are of course some (cumbersome) ways around this, but it tends to involve RPC of some sort and multiple processes. Not exactly technical reason, but a matter of opinion: The shadow of Oracle Corp. Makes me feel uneasy using Java. [1]: Borg is an alien race in Star Trek that considered other species inferior, assimilated their technology and turned them into more Borgs.
  - vardump 11y ago
    I've seen some moderation on this comment, up and down. Curious there are no replies on any of the points, given several people seem to agree and disagree with them. For what it is worth, I've been working with Java more or less since 1.1 days. Lately it's been less, while working with very low level systems. Surely the first point has prevented many memory intensive projects from using idiomatic Java, and opted on serialization to byte[], memory mapped files or Unsafe tricks. Forced to go objects of arrays instead of idiomatic arrays of objects. You can make it fast and consume little memory, but not without some considerable pain. The second point has prevented me from choosing Java as a technology quite a few times. Sometimes you just need to provide a shared object (dynamically linked library) that can be loaded with all those languages with C-linkage. Third point is of course a matter of opinion. While OpenJDK is great and all, Oracle has behaved like a cage rattling gorilla in the past. Who knows what they'll still be up to, if they get in a tough enough situation? They sure have a lot of ammo, and I don't want me or the organization(s) I represent to suffer any collateral damage.
- annnnd 11y ago
  In short: G<wait... wait... wait... ok done>C.
- melted 11y ago
  Java by itself is workable. What I was referring to is adding yet another (and rather unnecessary) layer of complexity to an IDE which barely functioned as it is. That layer of complexity is the "web platform", which forces you to create UI out of divs, curse words, and duct tape to this day.

Because writing an IDE in a real programming language wasn't hard enough. <facepalm/>

by melted 11y ago

Because writing an IDE in a real programming language wasn't hard enough. <facepalm/>

thecatspaw 11y ago

whats wrong with java?

hellofunk 11y ago
I think many find Java to be quite inflexible and old compared to new programming paradigms of the last decade. It's much harder to get things done in Java than in many other languages due to how restrictive it can be (i.e. the notion that all things must be an OO class, etc). It is also not an elegant language, requiring lots of verbosity and boilerplate which tend to get in the way.
- thecatspaw 11y ago
  While this may be true in your experience (and mine, but only in the Enterprise field) this doesnt make java any less of a "real language"
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    Yes, that is true. I was merely trying to explain the melodramatic sentiment of the comment you responded to.
- chrisseaton 11y ago
  What new programming paradigms have been developed in the last decade? I can't think of any.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    Many of the older paradigms have been popularized and gone mainstream in the last 5 to 10 years.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I think many find Java to be quite inflexible and old compared to new programming paradigms of the last decade. (...) It is also not an elegant language, requiring lots of verbosity and boilerplate which tend to get in the way. That sure didn't stop Go from gaining popularity.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    I've found Go programs to be pretty concise, in the general case. Low on boilerplate code and high in readability (in the sense that you can see what something does relatively quickly because there is very little standard boilerplate around the functionally relevant code). It is clumsy at some stuff, and doesn't do some kinds of abstraction, so you might have to repeat yourself some, but comparing it to Java? That's not something I've seen anyone who's worked in both do, I don't think.
vardump 11y ago
A lot less will be wrong with Java, once "struct" value types are implemented. I guess that'll be in Java 10? This should improve performance significantly thanks to locality of reference and reduce heap footprint in the same time. Java tends to be "Star Trek Borg like" [1] in sense it's often impossible or at least cumbersome to use libraries written in it in non-JVM languages. When can we write a .so/.dylib/.dll in Java? There are of course some (cumbersome) ways around this, but it tends to involve RPC of some sort and multiple processes. Not exactly technical reason, but a matter of opinion: The shadow of Oracle Corp. Makes me feel uneasy using Java. [1]: Borg is an alien race in Star Trek that considered other species inferior, assimilated their technology and turned them into more Borgs.
- vardump 11y ago
  I've seen some moderation on this comment, up and down. Curious there are no replies on any of the points, given several people seem to agree and disagree with them. For what it is worth, I've been working with Java more or less since 1.1 days. Lately it's been less, while working with very low level systems. Surely the first point has prevented many memory intensive projects from using idiomatic Java, and opted on serialization to byte[], memory mapped files or Unsafe tricks. Forced to go objects of arrays instead of idiomatic arrays of objects. You can make it fast and consume little memory, but not without some considerable pain. The second point has prevented me from choosing Java as a technology quite a few times. Sometimes you just need to provide a shared object (dynamically linked library) that can be loaded with all those languages with C-linkage. Third point is of course a matter of opinion. While OpenJDK is great and all, Oracle has behaved like a cage rattling gorilla in the past. Who knows what they'll still be up to, if they get in a tough enough situation? They sure have a lot of ammo, and I don't want me or the organization(s) I represent to suffer any collateral damage.
annnnd 11y ago
In short: G<wait... wait... wait... ok done>C.
melted 11y ago
Java by itself is workable. What I was referring to is adding yet another (and rather unnecessary) layer of complexity to an IDE which barely functioned as it is. That layer of complexity is the "web platform", which forces you to create UI out of divs, curse words, and duct tape to this day.