4 ms·

I think that’s largely true, but not completely. It just turns out that certain language features sincerely matter more for business software, such as rapidly m

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I think that’s largely true, but not completely. It just turns out that certain language features sincerely matter more for business software, such as rapidly mutating object & data models without needs to update them as a ripple effect through other designs in the system, and the ability to trade-off safety or correctness as resources just like memory or runtime complexity, which Java as a language is just not set up to do easily.

the_af 6y ago
Maybe my brain is slow today, so please excuse me if this is not what you're saying. Are you arguing that Java is not set up to "do easily" business software or rapidly mutating data structures? Because Java as a battle tested platform has evolved many cool features for exactly those cases. There are even commercial pauseless garbage collectors (and the noncommercial ones are pretty advanced, too). Java and the JVM run circles around many of the technologies that became fashionable later, such as Ruby or the many javascript frameworks. For an article about "stick to boring and reliable" there seems to be too much push back against Java. I understand the psychological processes involved: stick to boring unless it's the one technology one personally finds unpalatable -- for me that would be COBOL or ColdFusion (and yes, I'm aware Java has been compared to COBOL by proponents of trendier technologies! :P )
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  A reliance on object orientation as a non-negotiable language requirement is intrinsically antithetical to efficiency for business software. If a language supports what I would call “lightweight OO” - extremely low boiler plate, zero required OO constructs (purely optional), and language features that render the concept of dependency injection intrinsically obsolete (because mocking can be done purely through introspection at no cost), then that flavor of OO is well suited for business problems. It has less to do with things like JVM or GC oddities, because those can be straightforwardly engineered around. It’s more about what non-negotiable commitments to specific patterns or strategies come along with the language choice. Pure functional languages are the worst offenders in this area, which is why their benefits aren’t actually benefits and they are poorly suited for business software. Of the core “industry standard languages” Java would be the next worst offender. Conversely, I think C# is an ecosystem that suffered the same limitations as Java but found ways to extend and reinvent that make it more attractive now, though still far behind Python, C and C++.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > A reliance on object orientation as a non-negotiable language requirement is intrinsically antithetical to efficiency for business software. and > Pure functional languages are the worst offenders in this area, which is why their benefits aren’t actually benefits and they are poorly suited for business software. Of the core “industry standard languages” Java would be the next worst offender. You seem to be talking out of principle instead of actually having hands-on experience developing large systems in Java. To be honest, it doesn't seem you're familiar with the language or the platform. I'm not interested in debating your theoretical preconceptions.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      I work in a company whose core systems are all written in Java, I deal with modern Java every day.
      - the_af 6y ago
        Well, it really, really doesn't show. I'll have to take your word for it. I suppose your company is doing badly, since Java is really not suitable for its needs? You seem likewise uninformed about functional programming and how it has been used to write extremely high-performance fintech systems.
        wpietri 6y ago
        No, mlthoughts2018 doesn't "seem" that way. You have decided they are, and are camouflaging your personal chosen interpretation with false objectivity.
        the_af 6y ago
        Sorry, I'm even less interested in arguing with what you think of another user who doesn't need your help defending their point. In any case, that Java's OOP cannot be successfully deployed for business software is counterfactual. Anyone insisting on that point is unfamiliar with Java.

the_af 6y ago

Maybe my brain is slow today, so please excuse me if this is not what you're saying. Are you arguing that Java is not set up to "do easily" business software or rapidly mutating data structures? Because Java as a battle tested platform has evolved many cool features for exactly those cases. There are even commercial pauseless garbage collectors (and the noncommercial ones are pretty advanced, too). Java and the JVM run circles around many of the technologies that became fashionable later, such as Ruby or the many javascript frameworks. For an article about "stick to boring and reliable" there seems to be too much push back against Java. I understand the psychological processes involved: stick to boring unless it's the one technology one personally finds unpalatable -- for me that would be COBOL or ColdFusion (and yes, I'm aware Java has been compared to COBOL by proponents of trendier technologies! :P )

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
A reliance on object orientation as a non-negotiable language requirement is intrinsically antithetical to efficiency for business software. If a language supports what I would call “lightweight OO” - extremely low boiler plate, zero required OO constructs (purely optional), and language features that render the concept of dependency injection intrinsically obsolete (because mocking can be done purely through introspection at no cost), then that flavor of OO is well suited for business problems. It has less to do with things like JVM or GC oddities, because those can be straightforwardly engineered around. It’s more about what non-negotiable commitments to specific patterns or strategies come along with the language choice. Pure functional languages are the worst offenders in this area, which is why their benefits aren’t actually benefits and they are poorly suited for business software. Of the core “industry standard languages” Java would be the next worst offender. Conversely, I think C# is an ecosystem that suffered the same limitations as Java but found ways to extend and reinvent that make it more attractive now, though still far behind Python, C and C++.
- the_af 6y ago
  > A reliance on object orientation as a non-negotiable language requirement is intrinsically antithetical to efficiency for business software. and > Pure functional languages are the worst offenders in this area, which is why their benefits aren’t actually benefits and they are poorly suited for business software. Of the core “industry standard languages” Java would be the next worst offender. You seem to be talking out of principle instead of actually having hands-on experience developing large systems in Java. To be honest, it doesn't seem you're familiar with the language or the platform. I'm not interested in debating your theoretical preconceptions.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    I work in a company whose core systems are all written in Java, I deal with modern Java every day.
    - the_af 6y ago
      Well, it really, really doesn't show. I'll have to take your word for it. I suppose your company is doing badly, since Java is really not suitable for its needs? You seem likewise uninformed about functional programming and how it has been used to write extremely high-performance fintech systems.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        No, mlthoughts2018 doesn't "seem" that way. You have decided they are, and are camouflaging your personal chosen interpretation with false objectivity.
        the_af 6y ago
        Sorry, I'm even less interested in arguing with what you think of another user who doesn't need your help defending their point. In any case, that Java's OOP cannot be successfully deployed for business software is counterfactual. Anyone insisting on that point is unfamiliar with Java.