3 ms·

> these tools largely haven't gotten any easier since 2004 That's not really true. I was doing professional Java development in 2004. Nowadays we have things l

by abalone 12y ago

> these tools largely haven't gotten any easier since 2004 That's not really true. I was doing professional Java development in 2004. Nowadays we have things like Dropwizard and Play. It sounds like Bray was intentionally trying to use just the Oracle-provided tools and libraries. If he wanted to do that he'd been better off with Play. That's a single distribution designed for exactly his use case: simple OOTB text editor scripting, no compilation, no deployment, lots of stuff built in, just go.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago
While I have to put up the big blinking disclaimer that I'm not a Java programmer so take this with a box of salt, I'm not sure that really invalidates his point -- out of the box it's (apparently) far harder to build at least certain kinds of applications in Java that seem pretty trivial in other languages. I don't doubt your word that if he'd started with Play it would have been much easier to write that command line app that fetches a document with HTTPS, but downloading a third-party, self-described "high-velocity web framework" probably shouldn't be a recommended way to solve this problem.
- abalone 12y ago
  It's not harder in Java.. if you use Play, which offers everything OOTB. How is that not a recommendable solution? If you refuse to download Play out of some misguided principle that everything must be OOTB by the core language provider, then (a) that's arbitrary and (b) you're misunderstanding the design principle of low-level languages like Java and C++ that have enabled them to stick around for so long. They don't bake in (as many) opinions. Play does, which makes it easier OOTB. So does Dropwizard. Take your pick, they're all "Java". That's the beauty of it.. it can address a very wide range of needs from "I just want to get something done" to "I want to control every detail very close to the metal".

by abalone 12y ago

chipotle_coyote 12y ago

While I have to put up the big blinking disclaimer that I'm not a Java programmer so take this with a box of salt, I'm not sure that really invalidates his point -- out of the box it's (apparently) far harder to build at least certain kinds of applications in Java that seem pretty trivial in other languages. I don't doubt your word that if he'd started with Play it would have been much easier to write that command line app that fetches a document with HTTPS, but downloading a third-party, self-described "high-velocity web framework" probably shouldn't be a recommended way to solve this problem.

abalone 12y ago
It's not harder in Java.. if you use Play, which offers everything OOTB. How is that not a recommendable solution? If you refuse to download Play out of some misguided principle that everything must be OOTB by the core language provider, then (a) that's arbitrary and (b) you're misunderstanding the design principle of low-level languages like Java and C++ that have enabled them to stick around for so long. They don't bake in (as many) opinions. Play does, which makes it easier OOTB. So does Dropwizard. Take your pick, they're all "Java". That's the beauty of it.. it can address a very wide range of needs from "I just want to get something done" to "I want to control every detail very close to the metal".