4 ms·
The tradeoff space you’re describing doesn’t reflect reality. Adding more brackets and pointless keywords to a language doesn’t meaningfully improve the program
by wyager 5y ago
The tradeoff space you’re describing doesn’t reflect reality. Adding more brackets and pointless keywords to a language doesn’t meaningfully improve the programmer experience in any way. There are plenty of terse languages that don’t require an IDE to understand. If anything, Java effectively requires an IDE to use because it’s so verbose.
The things that I write in a computer program’s code should correspond as closely as possible to what the program means - nothing more and nothing less. Java is terrible at this.
- BMorearty 5y agoExcellent counterpoint about Java requiring an IDE because it’s so verbose. In fact when I complain about Java’s verboseness, Java fans tell me “who cares, just use your IDE’s ability to auto-generate code!” But of course that doesn’t help with the _reading_ of verbose code.
- kaba0 5y agoCounterpoint counterpoint: an IDE is most definitely not required to write Java, but due to the ecosystem’s size, reliance on IDE and language’s simplicity (that does cause some additional verboseness), Java’s IDEs are top notch and I wager that you actually type less characters for the same codebase in Java than in some less verbose language due to them. So all in all, win-win with more readable code and less typing.