3 ms·

> "I did Java in a serious project without frameworks once" is not a counter to: Java needs frameworks to be generally useful. Yes, it pretty much is. Because

> "I did Java in a serious project without frameworks once" is not a counter to: Java needs frameworks to be generally useful. Yes, it pretty much is. Because "needs" implies a non-negotiable requirement. I need to breathe to live. I need to study to learn. I need to open the door to leave the house. If I can write useful software in a language without using frameworks, then said usage is not a non-negotiable requirement.

hurril 3y ago
You forgot "To be generally useful". And as I've stated many times now in this thread: the proof lies in what job ads mention. They _never_ look for Java programmers without Spring Boot. > If I can write useful software in a language without using frameworks, then said usage is not a non-negotiable requirement. You are not Java. I can write useful software in Brainf*ck. This does not make BF generally useful. Enough, now.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > the proof lies in what job ads mention. Considering how many job ads for "entry level position" then go on to list a skillset that describes half an IT department, I'm not sure I would consider using these as a technical argument.
  - hurril 3y ago
    They aren't part of a technical argument. The root parent of this discussion pertains to the value of frameworks. In this context, I am making the claim that Java and Java programmers need frameworks and that hating them is basically misdirected. You are, in effect, blaming the plastic hammer for not working without first turning it into a metallic one. You can agree with this or not but please direct your answers to the claim I am making and please be honest. I'm frankly shocked that this is a controversial take and I can honestly say that this has made me understand why Java with Spring Boot as well as JavaScript is so prevalent still. You like it the way it is and probably always will! I mean: judging by how most of you respond, you've probably also missed to point though so I can never be quite sure.

hurril 3y ago

You forgot "To be generally useful". And as I've stated many times now in this thread: the proof lies in what job ads mention. They _never_ look for Java programmers without Spring Boot. > If I can write useful software in a language without using frameworks, then said usage is not a non-negotiable requirement. You are not Java. I can write useful software in Brainf*ck. This does not make BF generally useful. Enough, now.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> the proof lies in what job ads mention. Considering how many job ads for "entry level position" then go on to list a skillset that describes half an IT department, I'm not sure I would consider using these as a technical argument.
- hurril 3y ago
  They aren't part of a technical argument. The root parent of this discussion pertains to the value of frameworks. In this context, I am making the claim that Java and Java programmers need frameworks and that hating them is basically misdirected. You are, in effect, blaming the plastic hammer for not working without first turning it into a metallic one. You can agree with this or not but please direct your answers to the claim I am making and please be honest. I'm frankly shocked that this is a controversial take and I can honestly say that this has made me understand why Java with Spring Boot as well as JavaScript is so prevalent still. You like it the way it is and probably always will! I mean: judging by how most of you respond, you've probably also missed to point though so I can never be quite sure.