Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

kuomarc.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#91

Post by reality_czech »

RangerScience wrote: post #64

I've recently come around on Java (although I'll still rarely choose it), mostly due to the idea that "all things get complicated, so what matters is how you manage that complexity". Java started to "click" when I realized how much you build objects out of other objects like layers of an onion, just adding a bit at each step, and it clicked a bunch more as I understood Spring's bean system, which itself clicked more…

Java has been gradually eating all the good parts of Scala. So far, it's eaten lambdas, map / reduce / fold functions, option types, raw string literals, the concept of a built-in REPL, type inference for local variables, and default methods in interfaces (which is kind of like mixins). Pattern matching and type classes are on the menu, but not yet formally merged into Java.

So what does Scala have left? Operator overloading, which tends to lead to unclear code. "Implicit," which should give any former C++ programmer PTSD flashbacks. A compiler which is pretty slow. The ability to embed XML into code (why?). A collections library which is nightmarishly complex. (See https://yz.mit.edu/wp/true-scala-complexity/ )

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#92

Post by yen223 »

jayd16 wrote: post #65
yen223 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the reverse. Ive never seen a Java codebase that I thought was pleasant to work with, but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

You're really underestimating the power of Java's boring workhorse methodology. If you're looking for love there's a lot of other languages that are more pure and more beautiful for certain use cases. However, there's a reason Java is in the top 3 most popular languages. Its pragmatic, it scales, it plays nice with tooling and the language itself is pretty passable.

I'm not asking for anything fancy - just an example of a Java codebase that is "good" for whatever definition of "good".

I'm currently dabbling in Android development, and the few Java libraries I've dealt with, especially Android's own APIs, have been a thorough exercise in frustration, to put it mildly.

Where are the good Java codebases hiding?

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#93

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

ilovecaching wrote: post #75
nayuki wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that Java has ~50% more code than Python due to types and braces. But I agree with you that it's worth it, because the compiler can check that a programmer satisfied a constraint, instead of relying on informal conventions or comments. You can have a statically typed language without verbosity, via type inference (Haskell, newer Java, etc.). I wouldn't say I enjoy Java's verbosity, but I would take this o…

Most Haskellers write out the types even though they can be inferred. In a pure language, signatures are extremely close to documentation (you know exactly what a function will do by its signature). Java requires more code than Python or Haskell because it's extremely imperative and statement based. Python on the other hand includes a lot of functional, more expressive idioms like concise list comprehensions.

Types aren’t documentation, no matter how many Haskell users delude themselves thinking it is.

Documentation is more than a function definition. Types don’t explain rationales and how to use functions and programs. Types don’t give proper examples.

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#95

Post by hasahmed »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #93
ilovecaching wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Haskellers write out the types even though they can be inferred. In a pure language, signatures are extremely close to documentation (you know exactly what a function will do by its signature). Java requires more code than Python or Haskell because it's extremely imperative and statement based. Python on the other hand includes a lot of functional, more expressive idioms like concise list comprehensions.

Types aren’t documentation, no matter how many Haskell users delude themselves thinking it is. Documentation is more than a function definition. Types don’t explain rationales and how to use functions and programs. Types don’t give proper examples.

It's better documentation than no documentation

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#96

Post by chowells »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #93
ilovecaching wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Haskellers write out the types even though they can be inferred. In a pure language, signatures are extremely close to documentation (you know exactly what a function will do by its signature). Java requires more code than Python or Haskell because it's extremely imperative and statement based. Python on the other hand includes a lot of functional, more expressive idioms like concise list comprehensions.

Types aren’t documentation, no matter how many Haskell users delude themselves thinking it is. Documentation is more than a function definition. Types don’t explain rationales and how to use functions and programs. Types don’t give proper examples.

Types are really good documentation. I can tell I'm not deluded by thinking so because I can sit down with a Haskell library containing zero examples and write code that uses it. If your assertion was correct, that would be impossible. But it's not only possible, it's easy. Perhaps there is more to types than you realize.

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#97

Post by paavoova »

nayuki wrote: post #7

It is a recurring theme for people to point out how verbose a hello world program is in Java: class HelloWorldApp { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World!"); } } For argument sake, let's compare it not to Lisp but to Python instead: print("Hello World!") Once you get proficient in a language and start writing larger programs, your perspective can change entirely. What appears to be…

You wouldn't be able to write linear scripts in Python if it were so restrictive, or execute the interpreter from the command line with the -c command. You'd be forced to use OOP patterns for trivial code, whereas Python as it is now doesn't require any OOP at all. I really don't understand why you'd want to force everything into OOP doctrine.

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#98

Post by tasuki »

nayuki wrote: post #7

It is a recurring theme for people to point out how verbose a hello world program is in Java: class HelloWorldApp { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World!"); } } For argument sake, let's compare it not to Lisp but to Python instead: print("Hello World!") Once you get proficient in a language and start writing larger programs, your perspective can change entirely. What appears to be…

> Do you really want print() to be so easily accessible in the top-level namespace?

Not necessarily, but I definitely want functions to be accessible in the top-level namespace. Not everything is an object.

Re: Why I love Common Lisp and hate Java (2012)

#100

Post by goatlover »

rococode wrote: post #26
nayuki wrote: post #7

It is a recurring theme for people to point out how verbose a hello world program is in Java: class HelloWorldApp { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World!"); } } For argument sake, let's compare it not to Lisp but to Python instead: print("Hello World!") Once you get proficient in a language and start writing larger programs, your perspective can change entirely. What appears to be…

Totally agree with you - I like Java precisely because it's so verbose. I'd rather have to type 20% more than spend 20% more time figuring out other people's code. And honestly, I always feel that the Hello World example is kind of biased. It's more an example of Java's way of launching a program being verbose because every program requires a certain minimal structure. But for the rest of the entire Java language tha…

Can't you get all the same advantages of Java with less verbosity in languages like Go, Swift, Rust or Haskell?
Post reply on HN