4 ms·

One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. Java comes with an insane stack by default. Not only must you understand all those par

by rapsey 6y ago

One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. Java comes with an insane stack by default. Not only must you understand all those parts (the vm and IDE), you must have a strong enough computer to work with it. Java developers always need the beefiest most expensive machines to work.

brazzy 6y ago
Bullshit. I can develop Java just fine using a desktop PC I built cheaply in 2010. And yes, I use IntelliJ for that.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
No, I don’t think this is a supportable assertion. The “simplest tool that gets the job done” is obviously a ridiculous over-simplification, since even Notepad will allow you to write Java apps. The choice between different development tools is down to the specific environment, developer requirements, and preferences. Also it’s not 2000. A Java IDE will work fine on any computer you can buy.
Traubenfuchs 6y ago
What languages do you write and which tools do you use? How much assistance are you used to or do you consider worthwhile? Where do you draw the line?
selfhoster11 6y ago
IDEs can help to learn programming and can facilitate exploration. Step-by-step debugging and refactoring are a crapshoot in less advanced editors, but both are powerful learning aids if they are easy to access - which they are in IDEs. Both IntelliJ and Eclipse are very easy to explore - just point-and-click, no need to set anything up if your language is well supported. Experienced devs also benefit, since IDEs are made to manage and navigate complexity that will inevitably show up in any mature codebase. Your runtime and tooling will always be a dependency, and you will always have to learn enough to troubleshoot it regardless of the language. PHP, JavaScript, Ruby and Python are no different to Java - the SDK must also be installed and kept upgraded, you still have to fix your application to work with a newer runtime when the language changes or when fixes are backwards-incompatible, and your SDK version might still clash. Performance is not an issue in practice. I only ever noticed IntelliJ being slow on a machine that was too slow to run a web browser, and I don't think that such machines would be very common because people would just get rid of them. Resource use has ballooned over the past few years due to the rise of Electron, so your machine already needs to be powerful enough to run Discord, Slack, Postman, or whatever other applications you wish to run in parallel. Adding a JVM alongside that is not much of an ask, given that IntelliJ consumes around 500 MB with two fairly sizable projects open.
jcelerier 6y ago
> One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. why in earth would you think that. we get further as a species because we develop more complex tools to achieve our goals, be they nuclear reactors, smartphones, etc.
- vetinari 6y ago
  It is the essential vs accidental complexity. Simplest tool that gets the job done does not mean it is simple. There's still the the part that gets the job done, so it still can be essentially complex tool. Accidental complexity, on the other hand, will only slow you down in the future, or even make you incapable to continue further development.
iamAtom 6y ago
Good luck with working on complex enterprise projects with simplest tool like golang
coldtea 6y ago
>One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. So, like we should all build houses with straws and mud, since that is the simplest and gets the job done (creates a habitable structure) too?
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  I would build my house from bricks or from logs, like people dit thousands years ago. Not from some modern carbon fiber.
  - oblio 6y ago
    It's very naive to assume that just because the general category of the base material is the same, the construction techniques are similar. Even the materials are not actually the same, modern bricks are a lot more complex than basic bricks. I doubt any civilization even 500 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago could have made them. And we make them like this for reasons such as increased durability, better thermal insulation, probably reduced production costs, etc. For all intents and purposes a modern brick might as well be carbon fiber compared to ancient bricks.
HelloNurse 6y ago
In a professional sphere, appropriate tools are the best one can afford (i.e. the best that justify their cost). Simple tools are only appropriate for cheap, low-value projects (e.g. don't set up an IDE and build automation when some trial and error with Maven to compile something occasionally is enough).

by rapsey 6y ago

brazzy 6y ago

Bullshit. I can develop Java just fine using a desktop PC I built cheaply in 2010. And yes, I use IntelliJ for that.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

No, I don’t think this is a supportable assertion. The “simplest tool that gets the job done” is obviously a ridiculous over-simplification, since even Notepad will allow you to write Java apps. The choice between different development tools is down to the specific environment, developer requirements, and preferences. Also it’s not 2000. A Java IDE will work fine on any computer you can buy.

Traubenfuchs 6y ago

What languages do you write and which tools do you use? How much assistance are you used to or do you consider worthwhile? Where do you draw the line?

selfhoster11 6y ago

IDEs can help to learn programming and can facilitate exploration. Step-by-step debugging and refactoring are a crapshoot in less advanced editors, but both are powerful learning aids if they are easy to access - which they are in IDEs. Both IntelliJ and Eclipse are very easy to explore - just point-and-click, no need to set anything up if your language is well supported. Experienced devs also benefit, since IDEs are made to manage and navigate complexity that will inevitably show up in any mature codebase. Your runtime and tooling will always be a dependency, and you will always have to learn enough to troubleshoot it regardless of the language. PHP, JavaScript, Ruby and Python are no different to Java - the SDK must also be installed and kept upgraded, you still have to fix your application to work with a newer runtime when the language changes or when fixes are backwards-incompatible, and your SDK version might still clash. Performance is not an issue in practice. I only ever noticed IntelliJ being slow on a machine that was too slow to run a web browser, and I don't think that such machines would be very common because people would just get rid of them. Resource use has ballooned over the past few years due to the rise of Electron, so your machine already needs to be powerful enough to run Discord, Slack, Postman, or whatever other applications you wish to run in parallel. Adding a JVM alongside that is not much of an ask, given that IntelliJ consumes around 500 MB with two fairly sizable projects open.

jcelerier 6y ago

> One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. why in earth would you think that. we get further as a species because we develop more complex tools to achieve our goals, be they nuclear reactors, smartphones, etc.

vetinari 6y ago
It is the essential vs accidental complexity. Simplest tool that gets the job done does not mean it is simple. There's still the the part that gets the job done, so it still can be essentially complex tool. Accidental complexity, on the other hand, will only slow you down in the future, or even make you incapable to continue further development.

iamAtom 6y ago

Good luck with working on complex enterprise projects with simplest tool like golang

coldtea 6y ago

>One should always strive to use the simplest tool that gets the job done. So, like we should all build houses with straws and mud, since that is the simplest and gets the job done (creates a habitable structure) too?

vbezhenar 6y ago
I would build my house from bricks or from logs, like people dit thousands years ago. Not from some modern carbon fiber.
- oblio 6y ago
  It's very naive to assume that just because the general category of the base material is the same, the construction techniques are similar. Even the materials are not actually the same, modern bricks are a lot more complex than basic bricks. I doubt any civilization even 500 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago could have made them. And we make them like this for reasons such as increased durability, better thermal insulation, probably reduced production costs, etc. For all intents and purposes a modern brick might as well be carbon fiber compared to ancient bricks.

HelloNurse 6y ago

In a professional sphere, appropriate tools are the best one can afford (i.e. the best that justify their cost). Simple tools are only appropriate for cheap, low-value projects (e.g. don't set up an IDE and build automation when some trial and error with Maven to compile something occasionally is enough).