4 ms·

This title is horrifying!!! Java set back good OOP by about 20 years!!! We're still recovering from what Java did to the OO community.

dfranke 18y ago
The damage was done by C++. Java was a step up from there.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  Not really since the masses never used C++, Java on the other hand saw massive adoption and did much damage to OOP.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    Uh, C++ was huge in the mid-90s. Nearly all your Windows desktop software is in C++ - as were a lot of Web1.0 sites, before they were rewritten in Java.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      Let me rephrase then, Java saw mass adoption from unskilled programmers similar to VB. C++ has always been big among skilled programmers, but skilled programmers are not the masses. Compare C++ numbers to Visual Basics numbers and then tell me C++ had mass adoption. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
  - dfranke 18y ago
    Not sure why you say that. C++ seems like it was the lingua franca of non-elite CS programs after Pascal and before Java.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      Programmers with CS degrees are not the masses.
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    C++ was (and is) pretty widely used - even in places where java is now (the dreaded enterprise, yes C++ was very big there too).
  - brianm 18y ago
    Yes, yes they did.
markessien 18y ago
This is quite an accusation, could you please back it up? I assume you use OO also?
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  an object is something that has identity and responds to messages. this is not what java is. http://www.appliedthought.com/peter/smalltalkvsjava.html http://www.appliedthought.com/peter/smalltalkvsjava.html If anything, Java promotes class-oriented programming, not object-oriented programming. edit: if you disagree, please explain so i can learn.
  - markessien 18y ago
    The link you provided just seems to be some guy who prefers Smalltalk to Java, but does not in any way say that Java is not Object Oriented Programming, or that Java sucks at Object Oriented Programming. OOP, at the moment, is recognized as being what C++, Java, .NET are. There are certain concepts that allow you do OOP, and Java fulfills all of these concepts pretty well. Java, as a language, is really not bad at all. As a representative of the contemporary definition of OOP, it performs very well. Now, if you have worked a lot with OOP, and you have independently come to the conclusion that Java is a worse OO language than C++ or .NET, then you are entitled to your opinion. If, however, you are primarily a scripting language user, and you read the opinion on Slashdot or so, then I would suggest that you first read in somewhat more detail about this before making such judgements.
    - jhancock 18y ago
      I made the original statement that Java set back OOP by 20 years. And I stand by it. I used Java extensively for 8 years. I also programmed in Smalltalk for 10 years prior. Your assertion that "OOP, at the moment, is recognized as being what C++, Java, .NET are" is precisely the problem. People don't know their history. Java is not a horrible language. It did set back good OOP by about 20 years. There is no reason to bring C++ into the debate. Prior to Java, the C++ community understood that C++ was not a great OOP language. C++ was C++ and people chose it for its unique characteristics, none of which was that it was a great OO language. Next invested heavily in Objective-C for precisely the reason that they needed to get closer to the metal but knew that C++ was not great at OOP.

dfranke 18y ago

The damage was done by C++. Java was a step up from there.

gnaritas 18y ago
Not really since the masses never used C++, Java on the other hand saw massive adoption and did much damage to OOP.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Uh, C++ was huge in the mid-90s. Nearly all your Windows desktop software is in C++ - as were a lot of Web1.0 sites, before they were rewritten in Java.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Let me rephrase then, Java saw mass adoption from unskilled programmers similar to VB. C++ has always been big among skilled programmers, but skilled programmers are not the masses. Compare C++ numbers to Visual Basics numbers and then tell me C++ had mass adoption. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
- dfranke 18y ago
  Not sure why you say that. C++ seems like it was the lingua franca of non-elite CS programs after Pascal and before Java.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Programmers with CS degrees are not the masses.
- michaelneale 18y ago
  C++ was (and is) pretty widely used - even in places where java is now (the dreaded enterprise, yes C++ was very big there too).
- brianm 18y ago
  Yes, yes they did.

markessien 18y ago

This is quite an accusation, could you please back it up? I assume you use OO also?

aaronblohowiak 18y ago
an object is something that has identity and responds to messages. this is not what java is. http://www.appliedthought.com/peter/smalltalkvsjava.html http://www.appliedthought.com/peter/smalltalkvsjava.html If anything, Java promotes class-oriented programming, not object-oriented programming. edit: if you disagree, please explain so i can learn.
- markessien 18y ago
  The link you provided just seems to be some guy who prefers Smalltalk to Java, but does not in any way say that Java is not Object Oriented Programming, or that Java sucks at Object Oriented Programming. OOP, at the moment, is recognized as being what C++, Java, .NET are. There are certain concepts that allow you do OOP, and Java fulfills all of these concepts pretty well. Java, as a language, is really not bad at all. As a representative of the contemporary definition of OOP, it performs very well. Now, if you have worked a lot with OOP, and you have independently come to the conclusion that Java is a worse OO language than C++ or .NET, then you are entitled to your opinion. If, however, you are primarily a scripting language user, and you read the opinion on Slashdot or so, then I would suggest that you first read in somewhat more detail about this before making such judgements.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    I made the original statement that Java set back OOP by 20 years. And I stand by it. I used Java extensively for 8 years. I also programmed in Smalltalk for 10 years prior. Your assertion that "OOP, at the moment, is recognized as being what C++, Java, .NET are" is precisely the problem. People don't know their history. Java is not a horrible language. It did set back good OOP by about 20 years. There is no reason to bring C++ into the debate. Prior to Java, the C++ community understood that C++ was not a great OOP language. C++ was C++ and people chose it for its unique characteristics, none of which was that it was a great OO language. Next invested heavily in Objective-C for precisely the reason that they needed to get closer to the metal but knew that C++ was not great at OOP.