3 ms·

It's not about that. 1. The rate of change that the industry demands of super-popular languages is not the same rate that PL fans demand. Java innovates a lot

• foobarian 3y ago
  I feel that there is a particular "race horse" mindset when it comes to programming languages. It's very academic - for a thing to be good, it needs to have novel, never before implemented features, it needs to have intellectually superior properties, it needs to have them first, etc. I used to think more this way in school. It leads one to view the world as two camps: the language makers, who compete with the best new features in order to woo the language users (the industry). This results in being disappointed and puzzled that the language users consistently ignore the new shiny stuff and pick an ostensibly boring unsexy choice. However languages are not startup companies trying to sell a product, it's the other way around. The popular ones are largely driven by industry to suit the industry needs, which are largely very conservative. Nobody wants another Perl 6 or Python 3.
• Tainnor 3y ago
  I don't think it's fair to couch this in terms of opposition to "breakneck speed" language development. Even when Java was created, many languages supported FP, but Java chose not to. They had to retrofit it in many years later and it's still awkward to use compared to many other languages (not just ones created in the last 10 years).
  • pron 3y ago
    But Java is a mainstream language, and so we generally try to adopt features that a large majority of programmers are ready for, which means, pretty much by definition, that we adopts things later than most languages. Just to give you an example, we only recently added algebraic data types, but in some ways we still added them too early because far too many programmers don't yet know how to work with ADTs, but we felt we had to add them because we thought they're the best way to work with simple data in a language like Java, especially since we didn't want to add property or Kotlin-like data classes, as we think these are bad features. This emphasises another point, and that is that we're not "catching up". Most features don't prove their worth and will never find their way to Java, because we try to pick the minimal set of features that will give the most bang, and that reduces the growth of language complexity, which can truly harm adoption. In this way we also managed to avoid async/await. Another example that people often ask about is named and default parameters. It looks like lots of languages have them, but the problem is that it's usually implemented in a way that harms those languages. For example, C#, Kotlin, and Swift all generally try to support separate compilation and binary compatibility, but their named & default parameters break that. We'll only add the feature to Java once we know how to do it right (something that I think no other language that cares about separate compilation has done yet), and we have some ideas. And I disagree that FP features are awkward to use in Java (well, some pure-functional theorems don't work because of null, but they also don't work because of reflection, anyway, and they don't work in most non-pure-FP languages, either).
    • Tainnor 3y ago
      You're misattributing cause and effect. Some programmers aren't "ready" for keyword params, proper FP, etc. because Java decided not to include these things, even though languages that were much older, such as Smalltalk, had them. And of course, many other programmers have been "ready" for these things for ages (since the days of LISP). > And I disagree that FP features are awkward to use in Java Two words: checked exceptions.
      • pron 3y ago
        Languages aren't meant to serve features; they're meant to serve users. Our goal is not to educate users about language features, nor to evangelise for features, but to give users the features that will hopefully result in the largest value from the software they write. Back in 1995 I guess Java's original designers decided that ultimately educating users about functional programming may harm Java's adoption (because most programmers prefer familiarity, and most programmers didn't know Lisp, ML, or Smalltalk) and so would offer less value than not trying to do that. More productivity was to be gained by offering a GC in a familiar language than offering it in a language that would have been slightly more productive by more threatening. You can't educate the market on too many things at once; that's just not a winning move from a product perspective. A feature contributes such value ones there's some reasonable combination of productivity benefit and demand, and that combination differs over time; the same feature can have more value in, say, 2015 than in 2005. The difference can be because the kind of software people write is different, the hardware is different, or fashion is different (which affects demand). > Two words: checked exceptions. Checked exceptions come into play primarily when there's IO or other side effects involved, so we're already in an area that isn't entirely functional and there are special challenges with FP, anyway. Checked exceptions are rare in pure computation (and arise there primarily around parsing strings). I fully acknowledge there's a problem in the interaction of checked exceptions and functional combinators (and we're exploring solutions), but while it makes functional composition of IO cumbersome, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it makes FP awkward. BTW, while it is certainly not as elegant as it could be, combining IO with FP is already much better in JDK 21: <T> Result<T> doManyIOTasks(List<Callable<T>> ioTasks) throws MyException { try (var scope = new StructuredTaskScope.ShutdownOnFailure()) { var ts = ioTasks.stream().map(scope::fork).toList(); scope.join().throwIfFailed(this::handleException); // handle/rethrow exceptions // all IO is done & no more checked exceptions here; we can now do functional processing return ts.stream().map(Supplier::get). ...; } }