3 ms·
Meh. It's about trade-offs. Some languages are designed to be lightweight and require minimal assistance from the IDE. Some languages are optimised for very lar
by DrJokepu 14y ago
Meh. It's about trade-offs. Some languages are designed to be lightweight and require minimal assistance from the IDE. Some languages are optimised for very large codebases and expect a lot of "ceremony and plumbing" around them. And then there are, of course, millions of shades between the two extremes. Java and C# are in the second group. These are all very useful tools when used for the right purposes.
(Also I have written a fair amount of Java in vim and I didn't find it any more frustrating than writing Ruby in vim. And I don't even like Java.)
- yason 14y agoJava pretty much created the concept of a modern IDE where the editor knows about the libraries and does boilerplate expansion for you. This wasn't generally needed before the age of Java.
- raverbashing 14y agoJava also invented extreme overengineering of libraries, making it a need to have syntax completion for even trivial tasks Probably doing socket programming in C is easier than in Java (to be fair, it wasn't Java really, it was "OO evangelists" most likely, starting with C++ then going crazy with Java. Too bad they didn't even touch smalltalk
- Deinumite 14y ago> Probably doing socket programming in C is easier than in Java Actually... networked programming is really easy in Java. You are right though the state of a lot of java libs is hilarious! Smalltalk seems really cool but I've never had a reason to devote time to it.
- rbanffy 14y agoLearning OOP with Smalltalk can actually hurt your career. I learned OOP with Smalltalk/V, wrote some apps with Actor on Windows and, when first confronted with C++ I closed the book in horror and only came back 8 years later.
- michaelcampbell 14y agoIs not smalltalk's "IDE" so, so much more all-knowing than any java one?