4 ms·

Honestly IMO Java is in a very good spot right now. Mature technology, maybe a bit "unsexy", but rock-solid and future-proof. There are still pain points, but

by qsort 4y ago

Honestly IMO Java is in a very good spot right now. Mature technology, maybe a bit "unsexy", but rock-solid and future-proof. There are still pain points, but the language is leaps and bounds better than the Java 1.6 days.

hurril 4y ago
Yet, Java-codebases look the same now as they did then. The program structure is still "externalized" to a container because of a lack of abstractions. It's still exactly the same.
- kaba0 4y ago
  I really don’t get what you mean. Java is not the most expressive language, but it is eons ahead of the expressivity of C or Go and yet I don’t believe it would be fair to claim that those languages also externalize their structure?
  - hurril 4y ago
    What I mean is that a Java program is almost always sitting in a Spring container with most important stuff happening as "decorated magic"; this has been the case since even before 1.6. To say that it is somehow better now than it was, is therefore not worth much. Sure, I'm sure you guys'll put a map or a stream in there somewhere but it's ... still the same thing. There's no real evolution at all. The springification is what I mean by it being externalized and you generally don't see that in C, no. The pre-processor might be sort of the same thing but you generally don't bootstrap the entire thing using it.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Well, Spring is mainly for backend systems that have a very specific functionality that is best handled by a generic solution. In my experience this is in line with how most other web frameworks operate. But this is absolutely domain-specific, Java the language is indifferent to exposing a library that will handle incoming request and dispatch them based on some library logic, or creating a “traditional” program for the litany of other domains where java is used st.
      - hurril 4y ago
        Spring isn't a web framework, it's gaffer tape for a language that just isn't good enough without it; that's why it's [spring] still around and its use is so prevalent. It's not at all mainly for very specific functionality in the sense that your post sort of implies [for web, and databasy things I presume]; in fact: it's just for wiring and for applying/ attaching things to "abstractions". As in: please decorate these sets of things with this behaviour. If you'd chosen languages that permit abstractions in a real and usable sense, then you would not need this. In fact: with _one_ exception, I've never had a container in any Haskell, Scala or F# project ever. Do you think we ever needed one? And this is my point: those other languages have seen _tons_ of development in the "abstraction arena" with (internal) DSL:s and super powerful frameworks for making powerful DSL:s. Java has had none of this because these concerns har all (poorly) handled at the container level. The tacked on "functional stuff" is for sure cool coming from a Java backround, but they're pretty much useless.
        cityofdelusion 4y ago
        Spot-on analysis. I work on a team (that strongly prefers using Kotlin) in the CI-CD world. Despite web dev only being a minor part of our work, Spring just attaches itself to everything like a disease. I feel like it has gotten to the point where most Java developers that interview know Spring and not Java. Dependencies themselves also become attached to Spring (our example: bringing in Kafka -- super painful without Spring and hardly any examples or docs.) This "containerizing" is very unique to Java -- I've never seen anything like it in the other various languages I've used. I won't even mention the total disaster of JavaEE containers.
        hurril 4y ago
        Yes, it is terrible and it's the main reason I'll never be doing any Java, ever again. I did 10 years up until Java 6 (or so) and then jumped ship in favour of Scala (at that point.) Now, Scala for sure isn't perfect and Java isn't terrible, but mainstream Java really is. My point, though, is not to throw up all over Java but rather to quibble with the statement that Java has somehow evolved since then. It really hasn't!
pharmakom 4y ago
It’s still heavily object orientated. My preferred approach to applications these days is immutable core / imperative shell and Java makes that awkward.
- elric 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on the immutable core/imperative shell paradigm? Or maybe link me to some references? Sounds interesting! Thx :-)
  - pharmakom 4y ago
    There is a talk by that name that popularised it. https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog/functional-core-imperative-shell https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog/funct... Basically you have business domain objects that have value semantics and are immutable. You have functions that manipulate these objects. This makes the business domain unit-testable. Then on the edge of the application you have imperative code that manipulates databases, serves requests, etc. It’s like Haskell but as a design pattern rather than a language. In the JVM world, Scala and Clojure communities are adopting this approach.
  - dgb23 4y ago
    The sibling comment explains it well on a conceptual basis. I can maybe add a few notes since I'm in the process of gradually moving code to this architecture (for the lack of a better word). It is essentially straight forward to do. You look at a bunch of code in a module and determine which parts do these kinds of things: - data integrity, validation - parsing, transformation between formats - domain logic, decision making - algorithms and data structures This is your functional core. Note it doesn't matter too much if you have local mutations as long as they don't leak out. What you want to achieve is to have an interface where you can ask questions and you get the same answer for a particular question. This is certainly more productive if your language affords you with functional constructs, but its not strictly necessary to get the benefits. You code these parts in a way that they are data in, data out essentially. This leads to super easy and reliable unit/example tests and generative tests. And this part becomes very simple and easy to reason about. Secondly you have the part of your code that actually _does_ stuff, affecting your environment in some way. - basically any kind of I/O - cross cutting concerns between other side effecting modules and services (think DI and such) - error handling, error reporting and logging - caching, throttling, filtering etc. That's your imperative shell (I just call them modules). This part you write in an imperative/procedural style and you call the functional core parts from here, never the other way around. You coordinate effects so to speak. It is clear that you test these with integration tests, where you need to setup specific program state (or use mocks, but I try to avoid that) in order to find different code paths. This is harder to test properly but at the same time you also get to see everything that actually happens in condensed form. The degree to which you extract "pure" logic from your imperative shell is actually quite flexible. You can go as far as defining purely functional FSMs to extract much of the control for example. I think it really depends on code size and complexity as well as performance implications. The cool thing is that you can be quite pragmatic and iterative about it.
mcv 4y ago
I don't know. To me it feels like Java is a bit of a patchwork, with too many features added on top of it that weren't accounted for in the original design of Java. Generics are probably the oldest example, but there are plenty of others.
fithisux 4y ago
I agree. It needs more standardized tooling and libraries. But as a language it does not need anything more right now. Not even pattern matching. But some small touches here and there could be good.

by qsort 4y ago

hurril 4y ago

Yet, Java-codebases look the same now as they did then. The program structure is still "externalized" to a container because of a lack of abstractions. It's still exactly the same.

kaba0 4y ago
I really don’t get what you mean. Java is not the most expressive language, but it is eons ahead of the expressivity of C or Go and yet I don’t believe it would be fair to claim that those languages also externalize their structure?
- hurril 4y ago
  What I mean is that a Java program is almost always sitting in a Spring container with most important stuff happening as "decorated magic"; this has been the case since even before 1.6. To say that it is somehow better now than it was, is therefore not worth much. Sure, I'm sure you guys'll put a map or a stream in there somewhere but it's ... still the same thing. There's no real evolution at all. The springification is what I mean by it being externalized and you generally don't see that in C, no. The pre-processor might be sort of the same thing but you generally don't bootstrap the entire thing using it.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Well, Spring is mainly for backend systems that have a very specific functionality that is best handled by a generic solution. In my experience this is in line with how most other web frameworks operate. But this is absolutely domain-specific, Java the language is indifferent to exposing a library that will handle incoming request and dispatch them based on some library logic, or creating a “traditional” program for the litany of other domains where java is used st.
    - hurril 4y ago
      Spring isn't a web framework, it's gaffer tape for a language that just isn't good enough without it; that's why it's [spring] still around and its use is so prevalent. It's not at all mainly for very specific functionality in the sense that your post sort of implies [for web, and databasy things I presume]; in fact: it's just for wiring and for applying/ attaching things to "abstractions". As in: please decorate these sets of things with this behaviour. If you'd chosen languages that permit abstractions in a real and usable sense, then you would not need this. In fact: with _one_ exception, I've never had a container in any Haskell, Scala or F# project ever. Do you think we ever needed one? And this is my point: those other languages have seen _tons_ of development in the "abstraction arena" with (internal) DSL:s and super powerful frameworks for making powerful DSL:s. Java has had none of this because these concerns har all (poorly) handled at the container level. The tacked on "functional stuff" is for sure cool coming from a Java backround, but they're pretty much useless.
      - cityofdelusion 4y ago
        Spot-on analysis. I work on a team (that strongly prefers using Kotlin) in the CI-CD world. Despite web dev only being a minor part of our work, Spring just attaches itself to everything like a disease. I feel like it has gotten to the point where most Java developers that interview know Spring and not Java. Dependencies themselves also become attached to Spring (our example: bringing in Kafka -- super painful without Spring and hardly any examples or docs.) This "containerizing" is very unique to Java -- I've never seen anything like it in the other various languages I've used. I won't even mention the total disaster of JavaEE containers.
        hurril 4y ago
        Yes, it is terrible and it's the main reason I'll never be doing any Java, ever again. I did 10 years up until Java 6 (or so) and then jumped ship in favour of Scala (at that point.) Now, Scala for sure isn't perfect and Java isn't terrible, but mainstream Java really is. My point, though, is not to throw up all over Java but rather to quibble with the statement that Java has somehow evolved since then. It really hasn't!

pharmakom 4y ago

It’s still heavily object orientated. My preferred approach to applications these days is immutable core / imperative shell and Java makes that awkward.

elric 4y ago
Can you elaborate on the immutable core/imperative shell paradigm? Or maybe link me to some references? Sounds interesting! Thx :-)
- pharmakom 4y ago
  There is a talk by that name that popularised it. https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog/functional-core-imperative-shell https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog/funct... Basically you have business domain objects that have value semantics and are immutable. You have functions that manipulate these objects. This makes the business domain unit-testable. Then on the edge of the application you have imperative code that manipulates databases, serves requests, etc. It’s like Haskell but as a design pattern rather than a language. In the JVM world, Scala and Clojure communities are adopting this approach.
- dgb23 4y ago
  The sibling comment explains it well on a conceptual basis. I can maybe add a few notes since I'm in the process of gradually moving code to this architecture (for the lack of a better word). It is essentially straight forward to do. You look at a bunch of code in a module and determine which parts do these kinds of things: - data integrity, validation - parsing, transformation between formats - domain logic, decision making - algorithms and data structures This is your functional core. Note it doesn't matter too much if you have local mutations as long as they don't leak out. What you want to achieve is to have an interface where you can ask questions and you get the same answer for a particular question. This is certainly more productive if your language affords you with functional constructs, but its not strictly necessary to get the benefits. You code these parts in a way that they are data in, data out essentially. This leads to super easy and reliable unit/example tests and generative tests. And this part becomes very simple and easy to reason about. Secondly you have the part of your code that actually _does_ stuff, affecting your environment in some way. - basically any kind of I/O - cross cutting concerns between other side effecting modules and services (think DI and such) - error handling, error reporting and logging - caching, throttling, filtering etc. That's your imperative shell (I just call them modules). This part you write in an imperative/procedural style and you call the functional core parts from here, never the other way around. You coordinate effects so to speak. It is clear that you test these with integration tests, where you need to setup specific program state (or use mocks, but I try to avoid that) in order to find different code paths. This is harder to test properly but at the same time you also get to see everything that actually happens in condensed form. The degree to which you extract "pure" logic from your imperative shell is actually quite flexible. You can go as far as defining purely functional FSMs to extract much of the control for example. I think it really depends on code size and complexity as well as performance implications. The cool thing is that you can be quite pragmatic and iterative about it.

mcv 4y ago

I don't know. To me it feels like Java is a bit of a patchwork, with too many features added on top of it that weren't accounted for in the original design of Java. Generics are probably the oldest example, but there are plenty of others.

fithisux 4y ago

I agree. It needs more standardized tooling and libraries. But as a language it does not need anything more right now. Not even pattern matching. But some small touches here and there could be good.