6 ms·

I'm not sure users really care how many gigabytes their word processor is. How fast it is is probably more interesting to them. And while wasting CPU cycles o

I'm not sure users really care how many gigabytes their word processor is. How fast it is is probably more interesting to them. And while wasting CPU cycles on abstraction layers isn't a great way to make a super fast program, if the program still runs at 60fps and took half as much time to develop, then maybe they're worth it. Of course, when you end up with some standards-driven monstrosity like a modern web browser, you do seem to have a lot of unnecessary abstraction layers and also it's slow.

smegel 11y ago
> and took half as much time to develop Abstractions make coding faster now?
- benaiah 11y ago
  No, it'd be way faster to just do it all in assembly. These fancy "high level languages" and "memory management" and "libraries" are just cons foisted on poor unsuspecting programmers by middle management and enthusiastic marketers. Real Programmers (TM) don't need any of that shit. (/s)
  - smegel 11y ago
    You don't seem to understand what "abstraction" means in computer science. Hint: it's nothing to do with memory management. High level languages like Python/Ruby actually have less abstractions than lower level languages like Java because they don't need them, and Python/Ruby programmers tend to want to get stuff done rather than write a ode to the Gang of 4 in XML.
- RussianCow 11y ago
  Isn't that the point? Why else use abstractions if not to make yourself more productive?
  - smegel 11y ago
    Well if I asked your average brain-dead Java developer it would be to make your code more "generic" so you don't have to change a single line of code when requirements change, just tweak some XML somewhere! And if there is one thing that Java developers are not, it is productive. I will usually be finishing off a project in Python while they are still coding getters/setters on their AbstractProxyFactoryFactory class.
    - Skinney 11y ago
      You're comparing libraries here. There are libraries in Java which are not over-engineered. That being said, even if all Java libraries were over-engineered, it would not make you correct. Correctly crafted abstractions makes you more productive.
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      Yes, Java developers still hand code their getters and setters. What era are you from, again? Also, those "brain dead" Java developers still write code that smoke your dog slow Python code regardless of how meticulously you hand crafted your code. So yeah, I would be bitter too.
      - michel-slm 11y ago
        I'd say the need to use IDE-generated code implies there are missing language features. That's why Kotlin looks really exciting.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        lmm 11y ago
        I agree that IDE-generated code is a bad sign (though honestly a lot of use of getters/setters is brain-dead - they make sense for a library but in application code public fields are fine). But Kotlin means paying all the costs of using Scala (which is already production-ready and more widely supported) but getting very few of the benefits.

smegel 11y ago

> and took half as much time to develop Abstractions make coding faster now?

benaiah 11y ago
No, it'd be way faster to just do it all in assembly. These fancy "high level languages" and "memory management" and "libraries" are just cons foisted on poor unsuspecting programmers by middle management and enthusiastic marketers. Real Programmers (TM) don't need any of that shit. (/s)
- smegel 11y ago
  You don't seem to understand what "abstraction" means in computer science. Hint: it's nothing to do with memory management. High level languages like Python/Ruby actually have less abstractions than lower level languages like Java because they don't need them, and Python/Ruby programmers tend to want to get stuff done rather than write a ode to the Gang of 4 in XML.
RussianCow 11y ago
Isn't that the point? Why else use abstractions if not to make yourself more productive?
- smegel 11y ago
  Well if I asked your average brain-dead Java developer it would be to make your code more "generic" so you don't have to change a single line of code when requirements change, just tweak some XML somewhere! And if there is one thing that Java developers are not, it is productive. I will usually be finishing off a project in Python while they are still coding getters/setters on their AbstractProxyFactoryFactory class.
  - Skinney 11y ago
    You're comparing libraries here. There are libraries in Java which are not over-engineered. That being said, even if all Java libraries were over-engineered, it would not make you correct. Correctly crafted abstractions makes you more productive.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Yes, Java developers still hand code their getters and setters. What era are you from, again? Also, those "brain dead" Java developers still write code that smoke your dog slow Python code regardless of how meticulously you hand crafted your code. So yeah, I would be bitter too.
    - michel-slm 11y ago
      I'd say the need to use IDE-generated code implies there are missing language features. That's why Kotlin looks really exciting.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - lmm 11y ago
        I agree that IDE-generated code is a bad sign (though honestly a lot of use of getters/setters is brain-dead - they make sense for a library but in application code public fields are fine). But Kotlin means paying all the costs of using Scala (which is already production-ready and more widely supported) but getting very few of the benefits.