5 ms·
It shows lack of java knowledge and understanding of OOP. Rants about Java, but talks mostly about Quarkus.
by ACV001 4y ago
It shows lack of java knowledge and understanding of OOP. Rants about Java, but talks mostly about Quarkus.
- 411111111111111 4y ago> One of these days I’ll find out what the heck is a “bean”. It does indeed show a confusing lack of Java knowledge. It is quiet strange that this tidbit was in it, as I'm not sure how it's even possible to not know what a bean is if they've ever worked with the language for any amount of time. Unless it was meant as a sarcastic remark as the term is sometimes used to express what they enable (eg. singleton services) vs what they are
- pwdisswordfish9 4y agoI have worked with Java for a year or so and I don’t know what a bean is.
- kaba0 4y agoIt’s a standard and it’s similar to a naming convention, but instead applied to class structures. Instead of extending/implementing some strange, third-party classes, you create a POJO (plain old java object) and you add getters and setters for the fields you want to make externally reachable. Now tools that don’t know anything about your code can use them through reflection based on these conventions, this is how dependency injection, JPA, every Java EE/Spring thing operate.
- cutler 4y agoThen you ain't drinkin' the coffee.
- krzyk 4y agoEveryone should forget about "bean" and don't reuse that word.