6 ms·

You guys were creating Java? > ~1,000 classes in 1.1, ~10K in 1.2 the next year. 9K classes in a year sounds crazy as hell

Aperocky 4y ago
Sounds about right for Java..
- hot_gril 4y ago
  I disagree with what I call Java's OOP obsession, but I have to admire the drive behind that ecosystem.
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    I'm disgusted by it, but admire the ability for the system to run in spite of the mess that the pattern generate.
    - hot_gril 4y ago
      At least with lambdas and `var`, they yielded a bit on the old ways.
- origin_path 4y ago
  How many classes do you think it should have, ballpark, given the same feature set? GUI toolkits alone can produce thousands of classes because there are thousands of concepts that make sense to model, then add on security, collections, many utilities, XML handling, multiple RPC systems and so on. It's hard to over-state how large the Java standard library is. And it's not like other ecosystems do better. The standard complaint about JS is that you try to do something basic in that ecosystem and discover you have 10,000 modules in node_modules. Not so different, really, except that the Java stuff comes from a single team with a relatively coherent design philosophy.
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    If it is necessary to have that many classes, then there should be so many classes. but in Java everything is a class, main function? in a class. a library of static functions? in a class.
    - mypalmike 4y ago
      Sure, classes act as namespaces in that case. What pain point does it cause?
    - origin_path 4y ago
      With an alternative design you'd need to have some other code container concept, but it'd be almost exactly the same as a class file. If the JVM also had a separate notion of a non-class file, just hold to hold static methods, then it'd boil down to duplicating the format. Most languages decide to make the source file the first-class container concept, or in native languages, the DLL/.so, but this isn't obviously better and comes with its own downsides. Orienting the VM around classes has a bunch of upsides that contribute to Java being successful. The real complaint here is more about the syntax boilerplate involved in writing top level functions in Java that map to classes with static methods. Kotlin shows there's no deep reason why the Java language has to be written this way, it's just notation. They picked it to avoid complicating the language with special cases, but I can easily agree that smarter syntax is more important than the Java guys have historically believed. Kotlin is proving this at the moment.
- silisili 4y ago
  Sounds like a typical enterprise Java hello world type application.
- georgemcbay 4y ago
  Does the AbstractFactoryFactoryInterface and AbstractFactoryFactoryImpl count as two different classes...? Kidding aside, I always found Java as a core language (and the basic standard library for it) to be mostly fine, but the weird architecture astronaut cult that hovered around it and infected many of the commonly used libraries to be a real problem. Maybe things are different now for the language, I haven't touched it in many years at this point.
  - ngc248 4y ago
    Yeah it was never the language or the core libs which were the problem, it was mostly some of the frameworks which had the FactoryFactory problem
StevePerkins 4y ago
A typical well-designed class will usually be a few hundred lines of code, tops. Often less than 100 lines. 9k classes * 100-300 == 900k-2.7m LOC Not TOO crazy for the most complete standard library ever developed, for a language meant from the beginning to take over enterprise business computing. How many LOC are in whatever meme language is hype this year? Hell, I feel like I see nearly that many lines of console output, when I run NPM to pull in dependencies, lol.
- zeusk 4y ago
  Complete maybe, but it was not fun learning or using swing in college.
- killjoywashere 4y ago
  This is the kind of comment I come to HN for. That's a powerful insight on work estimation.
- tester756 4y ago
  That's 36 classes per *day* (900/250 workdays) I don't know how many people were working on that but when developing standard library you do not really want to rush designs. You want to be very, very careful about it. Here's a book about it from one of the most experienced people in API/Standard lib design on the planet https://www.amazon.com/Framework-Design-Guidelines-Conventions-Addison-Wesley/dp/0135896460 https://www.amazon.com/Framework-Design-Guidelines-Conventio...
  - StevePerkins 4y ago
    I can't speak for grandparent commenter. However, I can point out that the standard library for Java 17 has a TOTAL of 4,388 classes. TODAY. A quarter-century after the timeframe that they're talking about: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/allclasses-index.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/allclasse... So if ~10k classes were really written in a year, then I can only assume that most of that was the compiler or virtual machine runtime (i.e. C++ code) rather than the standard library Java code. Regardless of how anyone feels about "verbosity" or "design patterns" in Java application code, the underlying JDK is pretty inarguably one of the most solid and impressive pieces of tech ever developed. I'm not throwing any rocks at that codebase.
layer8 4y ago
Creating new classes is easy. Keeping the number down while still restricting them to a well-defined responsibility each is actually hard.
adastra22 4y ago
The 90’s were a weird time.

Aperocky 4y ago

Sounds about right for Java..

hot_gril 4y ago
I disagree with what I call Java's OOP obsession, but I have to admire the drive behind that ecosystem.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  I'm disgusted by it, but admire the ability for the system to run in spite of the mess that the pattern generate.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    At least with lambdas and `var`, they yielded a bit on the old ways.
origin_path 4y ago
How many classes do you think it should have, ballpark, given the same feature set? GUI toolkits alone can produce thousands of classes because there are thousands of concepts that make sense to model, then add on security, collections, many utilities, XML handling, multiple RPC systems and so on. It's hard to over-state how large the Java standard library is. And it's not like other ecosystems do better. The standard complaint about JS is that you try to do something basic in that ecosystem and discover you have 10,000 modules in node_modules. Not so different, really, except that the Java stuff comes from a single team with a relatively coherent design philosophy.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  If it is necessary to have that many classes, then there should be so many classes. but in Java everything is a class, main function? in a class. a library of static functions? in a class.
  - mypalmike 4y ago
    Sure, classes act as namespaces in that case. What pain point does it cause?
  - origin_path 4y ago
    With an alternative design you'd need to have some other code container concept, but it'd be almost exactly the same as a class file. If the JVM also had a separate notion of a non-class file, just hold to hold static methods, then it'd boil down to duplicating the format. Most languages decide to make the source file the first-class container concept, or in native languages, the DLL/.so, but this isn't obviously better and comes with its own downsides. Orienting the VM around classes has a bunch of upsides that contribute to Java being successful. The real complaint here is more about the syntax boilerplate involved in writing top level functions in Java that map to classes with static methods. Kotlin shows there's no deep reason why the Java language has to be written this way, it's just notation. They picked it to avoid complicating the language with special cases, but I can easily agree that smarter syntax is more important than the Java guys have historically believed. Kotlin is proving this at the moment.
silisili 4y ago
Sounds like a typical enterprise Java hello world type application.
georgemcbay 4y ago
Does the AbstractFactoryFactoryInterface and AbstractFactoryFactoryImpl count as two different classes...? Kidding aside, I always found Java as a core language (and the basic standard library for it) to be mostly fine, but the weird architecture astronaut cult that hovered around it and infected many of the commonly used libraries to be a real problem. Maybe things are different now for the language, I haven't touched it in many years at this point.
- ngc248 4y ago
  Yeah it was never the language or the core libs which were the problem, it was mostly some of the frameworks which had the FactoryFactory problem

StevePerkins 4y ago

A typical well-designed class will usually be a few hundred lines of code, tops. Often less than 100 lines. 9k classes * 100-300 == 900k-2.7m LOC Not TOO crazy for the most complete standard library ever developed, for a language meant from the beginning to take over enterprise business computing. How many LOC are in whatever meme language is hype this year? Hell, I feel like I see nearly that many lines of console output, when I run NPM to pull in dependencies, lol.

zeusk 4y ago
Complete maybe, but it was not fun learning or using swing in college.
killjoywashere 4y ago
This is the kind of comment I come to HN for. That's a powerful insight on work estimation.
tester756 4y ago
That's 36 classes per *day* (900/250 workdays) I don't know how many people were working on that but when developing standard library you do not really want to rush designs. You want to be very, very careful about it. Here's a book about it from one of the most experienced people in API/Standard lib design on the planet https://www.amazon.com/Framework-Design-Guidelines-Conventions-Addison-Wesley/dp/0135896460 https://www.amazon.com/Framework-Design-Guidelines-Conventio...
- StevePerkins 4y ago
  I can't speak for grandparent commenter. However, I can point out that the standard library for Java 17 has a TOTAL of 4,388 classes. TODAY. A quarter-century after the timeframe that they're talking about: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/allclasses-index.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/allclasse... So if ~10k classes were really written in a year, then I can only assume that most of that was the compiler or virtual machine runtime (i.e. C++ code) rather than the standard library Java code. Regardless of how anyone feels about "verbosity" or "design patterns" in Java application code, the underlying JDK is pretty inarguably one of the most solid and impressive pieces of tech ever developed. I'm not throwing any rocks at that codebase.

layer8 4y ago

Creating new classes is easy. Keeping the number down while still restricting them to a well-defined responsibility each is actually hard.

adastra22 4y ago

The 90’s were a weird time.