4 ms·

It'd take you 2 minutes to write a java preprocessor to build your constructors if you really care about such things. (I don't particularly. I don't spend much

by axod 17y ago

It'd take you 2 minutes to write a java preprocessor to build your constructors if you really care about such things. (I don't particularly. I don't spend much time at all writing constructors, and often want to do nonstandard things, validation etc rather than just passing over variables as they are given). With due respect, surely that's what being a good programmer is about? There's no law against preprocessing java if you really dislike the defaults. How many constructors do you write? Sounds like perhaps too many.

jrockway 17y ago
"Preprocessing Java" is called Clojure and Scala. But then it's not Java anymore, right, and the article is about Java.
- axod 17y ago
  Any programmer who just blindly accepts the default usage of a programming language, really has a lot to learn about programming. all languages suck for some value of 'task'.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    So the original argument is "java is verbose". How did we get to "all languages suck"?
    - axod 17y ago
      idk. I could rant about how perl is error prone due to ease of typos and reliance on special characters, but I don't think it'd be news to anyone.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        "ease of typos"? Give me some concrete examples.
  - mst 17y ago
    And yet half of this thread is people whining because 'use Moose' isn't part of their default usage of perl.
apu 17y ago
But almost everything in Java is more verbose, and so you'd end up writing "preprocessors" for everything (and the strong, static, explicit typing means that a lot of this preprocessing would have to be rewritten for even slightly different cases). So why not just cut-out the middle man and work in a higher level language directly?
- axod 17y ago
  >> "But almost everything in Java is more verbose" Sure, that's the common misconception. You're correct. However, if you actually look at the language and write stuff in it, you'll find it's not actually true. The issue is when people look at some existing insane Java code and cite it as proof Java is verbose. I'd absolutely agree - most open source / freely available Java code is verbose. Several of the libraries (enterprise etc) are verbose and insane. But that's not Java. Higher level languages are not always better. Use what is suited to the job at hand. I'm far more comfortable working at lower level than high level. Which is better.... talking high level and relying on a compiler/runtime to figure out what you want? or just talking a bit lower level in the first place.

by axod 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

"Preprocessing Java" is called Clojure and Scala. But then it's not Java anymore, right, and the article is about Java.

axod 17y ago
Any programmer who just blindly accepts the default usage of a programming language, really has a lot to learn about programming. all languages suck for some value of 'task'.
- jrockway 17y ago
  So the original argument is "java is verbose". How did we get to "all languages suck"?
  - axod 17y ago
    idk. I could rant about how perl is error prone due to ease of typos and reliance on special characters, but I don't think it'd be news to anyone.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      "ease of typos"? Give me some concrete examples.
- mst 17y ago
  And yet half of this thread is people whining because 'use Moose' isn't part of their default usage of perl.

apu 17y ago

But almost everything in Java is more verbose, and so you'd end up writing "preprocessors" for everything (and the strong, static, explicit typing means that a lot of this preprocessing would have to be rewritten for even slightly different cases). So why not just cut-out the middle man and work in a higher level language directly?

axod 17y ago
>> "But almost everything in Java is more verbose" Sure, that's the common misconception. You're correct. However, if you actually look at the language and write stuff in it, you'll find it's not actually true. The issue is when people look at some existing insane Java code and cite it as proof Java is verbose. I'd absolutely agree - most open source / freely available Java code is verbose. Several of the libraries (enterprise etc) are verbose and insane. But that's not Java. Higher level languages are not always better. Use what is suited to the job at hand. I'm far more comfortable working at lower level than high level. Which is better.... talking high level and relying on a compiler/runtime to figure out what you want? or just talking a bit lower level in the first place.