3 ms·
It looks like they mostly work in JS, so maybe it's the type definitions that look clunky. Java is explicit, yes. This is intentional :)
by winrid 3y ago
It looks like they mostly work in JS, so maybe it's the type definitions that look clunky.
Java is explicit, yes. This is intentional :)
- brrrrrm 3y agoyea, I guess it's the lack of human-friendly default assumptions mixed with prescriptive design patterns. definitely an anachronistic design intent :(
- winrid 3y agohave you worked with any compiled languages? It's not much different. It can get a lot worse ^_^. Java's one of the best languages to work in IMO.
- promiseofbeans 3y agoFunny thing is, most js devs do typescript now, which is the same as java, of not worse because you need an extra colon for your static types
- brrrrrm 3y agoWeird to think typescript is similar to a language that requires a class definition for “hello world” lol. You can’t even fit it on a single 80 character line…
- winrid 3y agoPutting everything in a class has some really nice benefits. For example, for performance monitoring/debugging, it's really nice to see memory usage and thread creation by package/class. Whereas, I've seen teams spend weeks trying to find memory leaks in NodeJS applications, because you just get "here's general usage by object-shape". Would literally take me less than a minute with Java...