4 ms·
Agreed, enterprisy patterns haven't helped Java. But sorry, no, I do not think it's a good language. It doesn't really do anything well, it's all luke warm and
by erokar 11y ago
Agreed, enterprisy patterns haven't helped Java. But sorry, no, I do not think it's a good language. It doesn't really do anything well, it's all luke warm and compelcted. It insists on types, but they have no power and are primarlily a typing (sic.) and visual nuisance. It's supposed to be object oriented, but it has primitive types for performance reasons that appear anachronistic today. Yet it insists on everything being a class and thus prohibits simpler data structures. Its support for functional programming is cumbersome and late to the game. Etc.
There are so many better alternatives on the JVM now — Coljure, Kotlin, Scala.
- LoSboccacc 11y agoI agree on types and functional implementation being sucky, but simpler datatype are definitely in, just need some imagination a struct, by any other name: public class Point { public int x,y; } you can even do binary packed stuff with some fantasy public class PackedRGBA{ private long v; //following getters and setter bit shifting }