4 ms·
No, they aren't very good. I think the problem is cultural. Programming Java gets you comfortable with extreme verbosity and tons of structure so its librarie
by herdrick 18y ago
No, they aren't very good. I think the problem is cultural. Programming Java gets you comfortable with extreme verbosity and tons of structure so its libraries end up like this: http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/apidocs/org/apache/xmlrpc/server/RequestProcessorFactoryFactory.html?rel=html http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/apidocs/org/apache/xmlrpc/server... (In extreme cases.)
Lucene was mentioned earlier - it, at least, is very good.
I have the same impression about the numerical computation and machine learning libs too.
- time_management 18y agoThere's a lot of "enterprise" crap in the Java libraries: extreme verbosity is the most notable problem. Object-orientation is also just the wrong metaphor for many problems. Finally, camelCaps are uglyAsFuckAndNotVeryReadable. However, the JVM libraries are well-supported and generally can be trusted to work. For a lot of the wheels I'd rather not reimplement, they're quite useful. I don't think that the Clojure of 2020 will be as reliant on Java, but for now, the JVM libraries are very useful.