3 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoGo and succinct aren’t really in the same universe.
- shepherdjerred 2y agoI agree and I think this is slowly changing.
- shepherdjerred 2y agoGo 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 agoHave you looked at Scala? I like it on the language level but it can be more complex than Java.
- shepherdjerred 2y agoThis 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 agoPersonally 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]