3 ms·

Clickbait in some respects. "Java should have been a different language from what it was, more pure in OO terms, and without the characteristics that made it un

Clickbait in some respects. "Java should have been a different language from what it was, more pure in OO terms, and without the characteristics that made it understandable & popular for developers from C and similar backgrounds." While the ideas are (somewhat) valid, it would have been a quite different language from the language that gathered traction and became popular as Java.

twblalock 7y ago
> While the ideas are (somewhat) valid, it would have been a quite different language from the language that gathered traction and became popular as Java. Yep. Practicality beats purity when coding in industry, and the Java ecosystem has almost always chosen practical solutions over ideal ones. This is the intentional result of prioritizing practicality and usefulness and portability. People who write articles complaining about Java seem to think Java should have different priorities, but Java has been one of the most popular languages in industry for a long time because its priorities make sense.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  What part of Java having a more consistent API with identical performance would have not been practical?
coldtea 7y ago
>Clickbait in some respects. "Java should have been a different language from what it was, more pure in OO terms, and without the characteristics that made it understandable & popular for developers from C and similar backgrounds." The description above is more of a strawman than the title is clickbait. There's nothing in the post that would make Java less "understandable & popular for developers from C and similar backgrounds". If anything, the simplifications proposed would make it more coherent and understandable. >While the ideas are (somewhat) valid What part of the ideas you don't find valid? >it would have been a quite different language from the language that gathered traction and became popular as Java. Not in any substantial way except that it would have more consistency in the treatment of value types, and 90% of it behind the scenes. Everything else, from a syntax, language, and API design perspective would be the same. (Java with Generics, streams, closures, etc. today, and Value Types soon, is widely different already from the Java of 1997).
amelius 7y ago
Java should have been just the VM, not the language.

twblalock 7y ago

> While the ideas are (somewhat) valid, it would have been a quite different language from the language that gathered traction and became popular as Java. Yep. Practicality beats purity when coding in industry, and the Java ecosystem has almost always chosen practical solutions over ideal ones. This is the intentional result of prioritizing practicality and usefulness and portability. People who write articles complaining about Java seem to think Java should have different priorities, but Java has been one of the most popular languages in industry for a long time because its priorities make sense.

jaredklewis 7y ago
What part of Java having a more consistent API with identical performance would have not been practical?

coldtea 7y ago

>Clickbait in some respects. "Java should have been a different language from what it was, more pure in OO terms, and without the characteristics that made it understandable & popular for developers from C and similar backgrounds." The description above is more of a strawman than the title is clickbait. There's nothing in the post that would make Java less "understandable & popular for developers from C and similar backgrounds". If anything, the simplifications proposed would make it more coherent and understandable. >While the ideas are (somewhat) valid What part of the ideas you don't find valid? >it would have been a quite different language from the language that gathered traction and became popular as Java. Not in any substantial way except that it would have more consistency in the treatment of value types, and 90% of it behind the scenes. Everything else, from a syntax, language, and API design perspective would be the same. (Java with Generics, streams, closures, etc. today, and Value Types soon, is widely different already from the Java of 1997).

amelius 7y ago

Java should have been just the VM, not the language.