4 ms·

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 t

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.
- tester756 4y ago
  >the underlying JDK is pretty inarguably one of the most solid and impressive pieces of tech ever developed. I agree, JVM is impressive.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
I think the first part of a standard lib is pretty straightforward to design. String operations, math, standard protocols, I/O are petty well understood. It gets more tricky once you get to higher levels abstraction like UI.
- makapuf 4y ago
  Nio and streams API show that even those were not evident from the beginning of java.
- imoverclocked 4y ago
  > ... pretty straightforward to design. String operations ... Tell that to Haskell. Also, I've seen some pretty gnarly use of String in Java.

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 t

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.

tester756 4y ago
>the underlying JDK is pretty inarguably one of the most solid and impressive pieces of tech ever developed. I agree, JVM is impressive.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

I think the first part of a standard lib is pretty straightforward to design. String operations, math, standard protocols, I/O are petty well understood. It gets more tricky once you get to higher levels abstraction like UI.

makapuf 4y ago
Nio and streams API show that even those were not evident from the beginning of java.
imoverclocked 4y ago
> ... pretty straightforward to design. String operations ... Tell that to Haskell. Also, I've seen some pretty gnarly use of String in Java.