61–70 of 82 posts
Why learn Java? Sure, there's lots of jobs out there for it, but there's also lots of Rails jobs too. Rails is more fun than Java, so if you're looking to expand your career opportunities, you're probably better off learning a tech stack that won't bore you to death.
Rails is not a language. Rails is not ruby. I wish people would stop conflating the two.
Why learn Java? Sure, there's lots of jobs out there for it, but there's also lots of Rails jobs too. Rails is more fun than Java, so if you're looking to expand your career opportunities, you're probably better off learning a tech stack that won't bore you to death.
> Why learn Java? Sure, there's lots of jobs out there for it, but there's also lots of Rails jobs too. Far far less than Java jobs. > Rails is more fun than Java, so if you're looking to expand your career opportunities, you're probably better off learning a tech stack that won't bore you to death. Rails and CRUD web apps bore most hackers to tears. At least with Java you can work from web apps, to Android, to web s…
And far far far far less than .NET jobs. Which is still more fun than Java.
> Rails and CRUD web apps bore most hackers to tears.
They don't bore me to tears. Between the brand new Javascript frameworks like Angular and CSS frameworks like Bootstrap, it's possible to develop great looking, simple apps that have a great deal of functionality in extremely short amounts of time.
The more interesting question is which will die first: Java or COBOL?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was impressed by your clear writing. Some minor suggestions since you asked for feedback: * "mandatory requirement" is redundant. If something's not mandatory, then it's not a requirement! :) * "Many admit that as much as Java is not much fun to write code with, the JVM is a different story." : This sentence is awkward. Perhaps something like: "Many admit Java code is not much fun to write, but the JVM doesn't limi…
Great feedback, I will certainly look up these books, thanks!
Also a lot of the de-facto Big Data/NoSQL/Distributed Computing stack is Java(/Scala). Hadoop, HBase, Cassandra, Neo4j, Storm, its actually pretty interesting to note that most of the popular nosql solutions are in Java. On top of that its the number 3 language on Github. I'm not a huge fan of Java but I'd be pretty surprised if someone was saying Java wasn't relevant. Don't quote me on this, but its also the fastest…
> When the author made the claim that Java was as fast as Go, I was a bit surprised. I wasn't aware Go had caught up to Java. As a Go "fan": it hasn't. It's close in some things, faster in a few, but the JVM has years (and years) of performance tuning in it, and Go won't unequivocally beat Java for some time (if ever). (This WiFi connection is failing me right now, but there's a good number of Go vs. Java benchmarks…
Java is still relevant because of how much code is written in Java.
As expected, the article was that, a "Java is fast" that can only be said if you don't compare it with anything made to be fast, and "Android uses Java". All the other reasons are excuses for drawbacks of the language.
The one thing that made Java relevant - that one can create a ruleset that constrain bad coders and avoid them destroying all your codebase - didn't go away. And the context where companies just don't know how to hire developers didn't change either, thus still only projects that protect themselves against bad developers are ever successful within them. But it seems that the more productive languages are so much more advanced than Java nowadays that it become better to protect a project by hiring less developers than by making them less powerfull... Or, at least, I can think of no other reason for people to care to anounce that Java is not dead yet.
>> Stream.of(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) .map(x -> x * x).filter(x -> x % 2 == 0) .reduce(0, (sum, x) -> sum + x); If I catch anyone writing Java code that I will have to work on writing Lambda expression crap like the above I will hit the ceiling. How can you debug junk like that?
How can you not debug "junk" like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I write code like that with LINQ and such in .NET all the time and have no problem debugging it.
Is there actually a way to properly debug LINQ expressions? I haven't figured out how to get Visual Studio to step through lambdas or break halfway through the chain (eg break after the filter call has completed and before reduce runs in the above example). But I'm not sure if I'm missing some blindingly obvious.