3 ms·

I don't see how Java's idea of type safety is particularly useful for anything, its type system is almost entirely useless. I've yet to see compelling argument

by lucian1900 14y ago

I don't see how Java's idea of type safety is particularly useful for anything, its type system is almost entirely useless. I've yet to see compelling arguments for why it might be better in "large" projects.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago
It may not be the greatest, but at least it's better than JavaScript's broken type system. It does catch at least some problems prior to runtime. The most compelling arguments regarding this matter are often in the form of personal experience working with large applications. JavaScript code bases don't scale well past around 10,000 lines of code and 2 or 3 developers at most. Languages like Java, C, C++, C# and Ada, on the other hand, can relatively easily handle software systems with millions of lines of code, worked on by hundreds or even thousands of developers spread globally.
- mercurial 14y ago
  Its type system is not particularly complex, but it is robust - it doesn't, for instance, coerce strings-with-numbers-in-it into numbers. Sure, you don't have sum types, etc, but at least it behaves in predictable ways.
- marrs 14y ago
  C++ is notoriously bad at scaling. I'm told that Ada is both very safe and painfully slow to code. JS certainly has its problems. I don't think its type system features all that high. Newcomers trying to make it behave like their favourite language is a much bigger problem.
keeperofdakeys 14y ago
Compared to javascript, Java is quite "rigid". There is always a right way to do things, and doing something else usually leads to hard times. This means that it fits quite well together, and allows complex systems to be more easily created. Javascript's relativity 'loose' type system means that developers have to spend a lot more time ensuring parts will work well. It isn't like good code can't be written in javascript, it's just that it takes a lot more effort.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago

It may not be the greatest, but at least it's better than JavaScript's broken type system. It does catch at least some problems prior to runtime. The most compelling arguments regarding this matter are often in the form of personal experience working with large applications. JavaScript code bases don't scale well past around 10,000 lines of code and 2 or 3 developers at most. Languages like Java, C, C++, C# and Ada, on the other hand, can relatively easily handle software systems with millions of lines of code, worked on by hundreds or even thousands of developers spread globally.

mercurial 14y ago
Its type system is not particularly complex, but it is robust - it doesn't, for instance, coerce strings-with-numbers-in-it into numbers. Sure, you don't have sum types, etc, but at least it behaves in predictable ways.
marrs 14y ago
C++ is notoriously bad at scaling. I'm told that Ada is both very safe and painfully slow to code. JS certainly has its problems. I don't think its type system features all that high. Newcomers trying to make it behave like their favourite language is a much bigger problem.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago

Compared to javascript, Java is quite "rigid". There is always a right way to do things, and doing something else usually leads to hard times. This means that it fits quite well together, and allows complex systems to be more easily created. Javascript's relativity 'loose' type system means that developers have to spend a lot more time ensuring parts will work well. It isn't like good code can't be written in javascript, it's just that it takes a lot more effort.