4 ms·

I have written a lot of java. I like it because it's comprehensively organized. I mean it does everything it should and does it a nice orderly way. The whole c

I have written a lot of java. I like it because it's comprehensively organized. I mean it does everything it should and does it a nice orderly way. The whole class system and c-like system, all together, works good. And addresses everything I want it to address. And it does that without adding a bunch of crap. Or at least I find that crap easy to ignore. But ya, they do seem to be adding a lot of crap. In a nutshell, it's a nice neat system. Python is a mess, comparatively. I'm looking for a new language tho. Orderly and comprehensive like Java, but succincter.

rocqua 2y ago
Perhaps go? Famous for not having 'a bunch of crap'. Alternativly python with it's typechecker in strict mode is quite organized. Though poorly typed outside dependencies are common. And ofcourse performance is much worse.
- vips7L 2y ago
  Go and succinct aren’t really in the same universe.
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    I agree and I think this is slowly changing.
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  Go and Python are both fine languages, but they aren't great replacements to Java (for me). I think Go will be a great language in 5-10 years. The authors of the language wanted to make something minimal, and they did a great job of that, but it was too barebones, though they are rectifying this by adding in critical features (like IMO, generics) I like Python for small scripts, but I feel like I'm constantly fighting the language when managing dependencies, dealing with init scripts, or figuring out which of the 10 ways I should use to perform a common task. I don't think there is a great replacement for Java. TypeScript with Bun or Deno might be the closest alternative right now, at least for me.
  - vips7L 2y ago
    Have you looked at Scala? I like it on the language level but it can be more complex than Java.
    - shepherdjerred 2y ago
      This is something I should look into. I've always felt that if I reach for Scala I might as well use a "real" functional language like Haskell, but maybe I'd find Scala to strike the right balance.
      - vips7L 2y ago
        Personally the functional zealots are what put me off of Scala. I’m a firm believer that you need to use the appropriate style for your problem; oo, functional, or procedural. I also really like exceptions and don’t want to go in Result hell.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
shepherdjerred 2y ago
> And it does that without adding a bunch of crap. Or at least I find that crap easy to ignore. But ya, they do seem to be adding a lot of crap. Are you referring to the newer language features? I've personally really enjoyed what's been added and felt that it's unobtrusive, though I haven't been able to use an LTS newer than 17 yet.

rocqua 2y ago

Perhaps go? Famous for not having 'a bunch of crap'. Alternativly python with it's typechecker in strict mode is quite organized. Though poorly typed outside dependencies are common. And ofcourse performance is much worse.

vips7L 2y ago
Go and succinct aren’t really in the same universe.
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  I agree and I think this is slowly changing.
shepherdjerred 2y ago
Go and Python are both fine languages, but they aren't great replacements to Java (for me). I think Go will be a great language in 5-10 years. The authors of the language wanted to make something minimal, and they did a great job of that, but it was too barebones, though they are rectifying this by adding in critical features (like IMO, generics) I like Python for small scripts, but I feel like I'm constantly fighting the language when managing dependencies, dealing with init scripts, or figuring out which of the 10 ways I should use to perform a common task. I don't think there is a great replacement for Java. TypeScript with Bun or Deno might be the closest alternative right now, at least for me.
- vips7L 2y ago
  Have you looked at Scala? I like it on the language level but it can be more complex than Java.
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    This is something I should look into. I've always felt that if I reach for Scala I might as well use a "real" functional language like Haskell, but maybe I'd find Scala to strike the right balance.
    - vips7L 2y ago
      Personally the functional zealots are what put me off of Scala. I’m a firm believer that you need to use the appropriate style for your problem; oo, functional, or procedural. I also really like exceptions and don’t want to go in Result hell.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

shepherdjerred 2y ago

> And it does that without adding a bunch of crap. Or at least I find that crap easy to ignore. But ya, they do seem to be adding a lot of crap. Are you referring to the newer language features? I've personally really enjoyed what's been added and felt that it's unobtrusive, though I haven't been able to use an LTS newer than 17 yet.