5 ms·

It used to be lots of boilerplate. Like MyClassType myClassType = new MyClassType() And then it was nice to use an IDE to help write some of that. Or generate

It used to be lots of boilerplate. Like MyClassType myClassType = new MyClassType() And then it was nice to use an IDE to help write some of that. Or generate java beans etc. But with that said, I don't think it's much you need an IDE for, it's more that java enables IDEs to do much more than it can for certain other languages.

vips7L 3y ago
You haven't had to declare the type since Java 10. var myThing = new MyThing();
- riku_iki 3y ago
  still need it for class members, unlike in some other languages.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Most languages don’t do type inference in “signatures” (function, but also class/struct members), as it would give you negligible benefit, a huge cost for the compiler and is commonly thought of as a bad practice. Out of Scala, Rust, I believe even Kotlin, none do inference in these places. Even Haskell, which does infer function signatures as well, need explicit type annotation for `data` definitions.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      typescript does such inference. I disagree with you about huge cost for the compiler and benefits are the same as in normal code block: reducing boilerplate.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        Typescript’s type system is deliberately not sound though. In general, there is no type inference available for OOP type-hierarchies as opposed to a more Haskell-like type system, where Hindley-Milner works
        riku_iki 3y ago
        I don't have strong knowledge in types theory, but why class C { a: int = 0; } can't be replaced with class C { a = 0; } ? what issues it brings?..
        kaba0 3y ago
        That can. But what about a field that is not initialized there?
        riku_iki 3y ago
        obviously you would need to provide type.
- matsemann 3y ago
  Yup, hence "used to", but I could be clearer it's no longer an issue.
  - vips7L 3y ago
    My issue with your statement is that you're pretending that this was a recent issue. This hasn't been an issue in over half a decade. Do we point out bugs in libraries from 6 years ago? Are we critical about what other languages looked like then? In my experience, Java is the only one that gets this criticism.
palata 3y ago
That's a thing I don't get. Maybe I am doing something completely wrong, but the vast majority of my time as a developer, I am not typing code. I can afford 5s typing `MyClass myClass = new MyClass()`.

vips7L 3y ago

You haven't had to declare the type since Java 10. var myThing = new MyThing();

riku_iki 3y ago
still need it for class members, unlike in some other languages.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Most languages don’t do type inference in “signatures” (function, but also class/struct members), as it would give you negligible benefit, a huge cost for the compiler and is commonly thought of as a bad practice. Out of Scala, Rust, I believe even Kotlin, none do inference in these places. Even Haskell, which does infer function signatures as well, need explicit type annotation for `data` definitions.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    typescript does such inference. I disagree with you about huge cost for the compiler and benefits are the same as in normal code block: reducing boilerplate.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Typescript’s type system is deliberately not sound though. In general, there is no type inference available for OOP type-hierarchies as opposed to a more Haskell-like type system, where Hindley-Milner works
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        I don't have strong knowledge in types theory, but why class C { a: int = 0; } can't be replaced with class C { a = 0; } ? what issues it brings?..
        kaba0 3y ago
        That can. But what about a field that is not initialized there?
        riku_iki 3y ago
        obviously you would need to provide type.
matsemann 3y ago
Yup, hence "used to", but I could be clearer it's no longer an issue.
- vips7L 3y ago
  My issue with your statement is that you're pretending that this was a recent issue. This hasn't been an issue in over half a decade. Do we point out bugs in libraries from 6 years ago? Are we critical about what other languages looked like then? In my experience, Java is the only one that gets this criticism.

palata 3y ago

That's a thing I don't get. Maybe I am doing something completely wrong, but the vast majority of my time as a developer, I am not typing code. I can afford 5s typing `MyClass myClass = new MyClass()`.