4 ms·

> There are plenty of languages that do something better than Java I agree and I never said otherwise. I specifically addressed three of the languages you nam

> There are plenty of languages that do something better than Java I agree and I never said otherwise. I specifically addressed three of the languages you named (Python, Go and C#). > Now we are traversing into "my opinion is fact here". I'd love to see someone argue that Go or Python have superior tooling to Java and the JVM. > Yes, let's dismiss every other language I'm not dismissing every other language, I don't even use Java regularly, I'm dismissing two of the "modern" languages you named.

jhall1468 9y ago
> I agree and I never said otherwise. I specifically addressed three of the languages you named (Python, Go and C#). By pointing out things that they do decidedly worse than Java, which was exactly the opposite of my point. > I'd love to see someone argue that Go or Python have superior tooling to Java and the JVM. I never said they did, because they don't, in general. But Python is absolutely superior in some areas (statistical modeling, machine learning) because the tools it uses are, objectively, better. > I'm not dismissing every other language, I don't even use Java regularly, I'm dismissing two of the "modern" languages you named. Right, you're dismissing them for decidedly stupid reasons. Literally no one on the planet is going to think Python is a good option for concurrency. And you're opinion on Go is literally just an opinion, that many (myself included) would absolutely disagree with.
- asdf1234 9y ago
  > because the tools it uses are, objectively, better. Bullshit. Python is often used for early exploration but the people doing serious work in ML almost always end up using C++, Java or Scala. > you're dismissing them for decidedly stupid reasons So having relatively poor tooling, poor package management, poor performance and bad concurrency support aren't good reasons for dismissing a language? Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages. That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup."
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    > Bullshit. Python is often used for early exploration but the people doing serious work in ML almost always end up using C++, Java or Scala. LOL. What? Did you poll every company doing ML work to arrive at that conclusion? C++, sure. Java and Scala? I've literally NEVER seen actual ML work done in either language at either of the 2 companies (both big 4) I've worked at. > So having relatively poor tooling, No. Is Java's tooling generally better? Probably. Does that make all other tooling poor? No. > poor package management Stop treating your preference as if it's fact. > poor performance Which matters sometimes, but not always. If performance were a metric that made a language live or die, nobody would use anything but C/C++. > bad concurrency support Only in Python. But that's moot, you don't need concurrency in every application. Do you realize there are ENORMOUS applications, in-use today, that scales dramatically and they are written in a variety of languages, including Python? > Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages. Your arguments here indicate you have very little understanding of basic language use-cases, so pardon me if I don't hold your opinion on language design to a very high standard. > aren't good reasons for dismissing a language They aren't reasons. They are your opinions and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic use-cases. Frankly, based on what you've said so far, your judgement about languages in general is on-par with what I'd expect for a new grad CS major that only used C++ or Java while in college. > That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup." And yet I clearly explained why Java is generally not a good choice for a startup. And it seems, most startups agree since the majority don't use Java.
    - interestingemu 9y ago
      GP is clearly right. What's the point of going "that's just your opinion" on every fact he mentions?
      - jhall1468 9y ago
        Yes... "Go's package manager is bad." That's a fact...
    - asdf1234 9y ago

jhall1468 9y ago

> I agree and I never said otherwise. I specifically addressed three of the languages you named (Python, Go and C#). By pointing out things that they do decidedly worse than Java, which was exactly the opposite of my point. > I'd love to see someone argue that Go or Python have superior tooling to Java and the JVM. I never said they did, because they don't, in general. But Python is absolutely superior in some areas (statistical modeling, machine learning) because the tools it uses are, objectively, better. > I'm not dismissing every other language, I don't even use Java regularly, I'm dismissing two of the "modern" languages you named. Right, you're dismissing them for decidedly stupid reasons. Literally no one on the planet is going to think Python is a good option for concurrency. And you're opinion on Go is literally just an opinion, that many (myself included) would absolutely disagree with.

asdf1234 9y ago
> because the tools it uses are, objectively, better. Bullshit. Python is often used for early exploration but the people doing serious work in ML almost always end up using C++, Java or Scala. > you're dismissing them for decidedly stupid reasons So having relatively poor tooling, poor package management, poor performance and bad concurrency support aren't good reasons for dismissing a language? Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages. That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup."
- jhall1468 9y ago
  > Bullshit. Python is often used for early exploration but the people doing serious work in ML almost always end up using C++, Java or Scala. LOL. What? Did you poll every company doing ML work to arrive at that conclusion? C++, sure. Java and Scala? I've literally NEVER seen actual ML work done in either language at either of the 2 companies (both big 4) I've worked at. > So having relatively poor tooling, No. Is Java's tooling generally better? Probably. Does that make all other tooling poor? No. > poor package management Stop treating your preference as if it's fact. > poor performance Which matters sometimes, but not always. If performance were a metric that made a language live or die, nobody would use anything but C/C++. > bad concurrency support Only in Python. But that's moot, you don't need concurrency in every application. Do you realize there are ENORMOUS applications, in-use today, that scales dramatically and they are written in a variety of languages, including Python? > Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages. Your arguments here indicate you have very little understanding of basic language use-cases, so pardon me if I don't hold your opinion on language design to a very high standard. > aren't good reasons for dismissing a language They aren't reasons. They are your opinions and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic use-cases. Frankly, based on what you've said so far, your judgement about languages in general is on-par with what I'd expect for a new grad CS major that only used C++ or Java while in college. > That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup." And yet I clearly explained why Java is generally not a good choice for a startup. And it seems, most startups agree since the majority don't use Java.
  - interestingemu 9y ago
    GP is clearly right. What's the point of going "that's just your opinion" on every fact he mentions?
    - jhall1468 9y ago
      Yes... "Go's package manager is bad." That's a fact...
  - asdf1234 9y ago