I also advocate for Java, but mostly because I invested in companies that manufacture RAM.
Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
31–40 of 155 posts
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#32If you're not picking the JVM in 2016 to build your core services and web applications then you're making a mistake that is going to cost you time and money either upfront in building things that already exist or later down the road when you start to need more performance and your RoR application isn't cutting it anymore. Say what you will about Java the language (I agree it's not particularly "sexy") but the JVM is…
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#33Experienced Java programmers will most often be indoctrinated/trained/used to over-engineering and wrapping everything in layers upon layers of abstractions. And the existing Java learning books, tutorials and examples still tend to follow that mindset.
The more abstracted your code is, the slower it will run, the more memory it will consume and most especially the more difficult it will be to get a new developer up to speed.
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#34If you're not picking the JVM in 2016 to build your core services and web applications then you're making a mistake that is going to cost you time and money either upfront in building things that already exist or later down the road when you start to need more performance and your RoR application isn't cutting it anymore. Say what you will about Java the language (I agree it's not particularly "sexy") but the JVM is…
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#35I agree that Java is the best programming language to write web services in right now. But I have to admit that the most threatening counter-argument to using Java in 2016 is that Scala is, to all appearances, a strictly better language. It's similar to Java and does everything Java does, but better- it has type inference, it does away with primitive types and arrays, it has compiler-checked string interpolation, it…
On the contrary Scala is baroque, its syntax is not following any known pattern. For example if I want to write a recursive function I have to indicate my return parameter type otherwise not. It doesn't matter whether you come from a C background or a Java background...or any background because of this: > def addInt( a:Int, b:Int ) : Int = { > var sum:Int = 0 > sum = a + b > return sum > } You have to relearn how a f…
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#36Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#37I agree that Java is the best programming language to write web services in right now. But I have to admit that the most threatening counter-argument to using Java in 2016 is that Scala is, to all appearances, a strictly better language. It's similar to Java and does everything Java does, but better- it has type inference, it does away with primitive types and arrays, it has compiler-checked string interpolation, it…
On the contrary Scala is baroque, its syntax is not following any known pattern. For example if I want to write a recursive function I have to indicate my return parameter type otherwise not. It doesn't matter whether you come from a C background or a Java background...or any background because of this: > def addInt( a:Int, b:Int ) : Int = { > var sum:Int = 0 > sum = a + b > return sum > } You have to relearn how a f…
baroque syntax?
Like these:
- https://swift.org/getting-started - https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/functions.html - https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#functions - https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/functions.html
Sorry but you pretty much say clojure is the best, however it has a lisp syntax, which IS baroque and most people aren't use to this. These days if you want to have a functional style. You eiter use Scala or Kotlin. Clojure is too much of a unicorn. People won't learn this. Also people doesn't care how good the language is or what design patterns were used. People use these languages cause they think the language has a actual value for them (as you think about clojure)
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java is great but there are other high-performance options with great languages e.g. Haskell.
I'm skeptical that any other language will be nearly as easy write, operate, and maintain in production as Java. It's really easy to administrate Java applications. You can connect to the JVM and examine what objects are in the heap, or request a thread dump and see what threads the application has launched and what they're doing. There are rarely any (JVM-level) correctness issues since code is safe and has a simple…
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#39When you try to use Java you will need new, young programmers. Experienced Java programmers will most often be indoctrinated/trained/used to over-engineering and wrapping everything in layers upon layers of abstractions. And the existing Java learning books, tutorials and examples still tend to follow that mindset. The more abstracted your code is, the slower it will run, the more memory it will consume and most espe…
I believe you that there are ineffective programmers of any language who over engineer, but I haven't seen that from personal experience with Java programmers. To the extent that it's a problem, it sounds like a hiring problem rather than a Java problem.
Re: Why we choose Java instead of a polyglot stack
#40When you try to use Java you will need new, young programmers. Experienced Java programmers will most often be indoctrinated/trained/used to over-engineering and wrapping everything in layers upon layers of abstractions. And the existing Java learning books, tutorials and examples still tend to follow that mindset. The more abstracted your code is, the slower it will run, the more memory it will consume and most espe…
I also don't see tutorials or books that create too many layers for a while (especially post EJB2/EJB3.0 days).