The call to action is worth pondering. Can Java's verbosity be eliminated? Maybe not. Can Java programs be made to be less verbose through better design? Yes!

The call to action is worth pondering. Can Java's verbosity be eliminated? Maybe not. Can Java programs be made to be less verbose through better design? Yes! It isn't the author's fault, but reading articles like this make me feel like Java supporters want it both ways. They point to Java's tooling and vast herds of libraries as benefits, but when you point out flaws in some implementation they say the language isn't the fault, it's that particular library. On the other side, when criticizing languages like Ruby they are quick to point to practices like monkey-patching as examples of how Ruby permits abuse in practice. Well, which is it? Do we compare languages on the basis of the actual libraries and programs people write? Or do we compare them on the basis of the libraries and programs they could write if they took advantage of the language's features and also had a keen sense of design?