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

Java Developers

nsainsbury.svbtle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: Java Developers

#41

Post by _pmf_ »

threeseed wrote: post #29
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #15

> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…

Actually there are "real systems" being written in FP e.g. Clojure @ SoundCloud. They just aren't architected the same way. Instead of a monolithic WAR you end up with a series of micro services. FP is actually more suited than OO for micro services since it naturally forces developers down the "do one thing well" approach. So I would stop with the "OO is what real people use" nonsense if I were you. Because language…

> Because languages like Scala and Clojure are rapidly taking over from Java in the enterprise space

Let's see how much of the momentum these languages keep after Java 8. Default methods, the new stream API and lamdas provide much what most developers need without introducing baroque features and orthogonal infrastructure.

Re: Java Developers

#42

Post by xiaoma »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #15

> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…

>Because that's what people use to write real programs.

Many people said the same of GOTO statements a generation ago.

Re: Java Developers

#44

Post by mlangdon »

I for one appreciate the hard work that was Android and Java. I spent two years intensively self-teaching, primarily on Android before starting my developer job. Having to take in large, unwieldy systems with lots of moving parts was mind expanding. I could spend a night in the API, go to bed and wake up feeling smarter.

I haven't done any Android for my job (and just a little Java), but every time I have to design more than a self-contained python script, I'm grateful for the exposure to such complexity.

Re: Java Developers

#45

Post by Dewie »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #15

> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…

> Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do.

FP wasn't mentioned in the article. Criticism of OO doesn't necessarily mean embracing FP, as far as I know.

Re: Java Developers

#46

Post by philbarr »

I've always found that the people who write the AbstractFactoryFactorySomethingVisitor patterns are the people who read about design patterns and want to use them for the sake of using them, because they think it makes them better developers.

Instead they should learn about design principles, and instead of thinking "which pattern should I apply here", they should be thinking, "what is the best way to create this code so that the basic design principles are upheld". You can start with SOLID principles and go from there.

The same happens with language features; when generics were introduced, everyone wanted a generic class for some reason when it's almost never needed outside of the Collections framework (bit of a sweeping statement but I hope you see what I mean).

In fairness, I don't think it's really Java's fault, only that it's been around long enough for there to be many more examples of this kind of thing. I've been working in Java for 15 years and C# as my day job for the last 3 - you can easily pick out examples in C# where the langauge has been abused: dreadful LINQ expressions where a simple for-loop would suffice (and be quicker), or multiple Events added to a class, ALL of which need to be hooked up by calling classes for it to be usable, so an Observer really would, actually, have been a better solution.

I've played around with functional programming and there are a lot of claims around how it forces programmers to write better code. I'm not sure how it's going to stop programmers abusing language features or the language characteristics, though. I may well be wrong about that and am happy to be put right by a knowledgable FP dude.

Re: Java Developers

#47

Post by andybak »

therealmarv wrote: post #26

Java can be really glad that there is Google with Android. Otherwise this language would be a strong enterprise focused language with very bad reputation on the end user side.

However - how many developers are turned off of being Android devs by the fact they have to use Java?

(and I know that probably many more are attracted because they already know Java but that's not my point)

Re: Java Developers

#48

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Dewie wrote: post #45
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #15

> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…

> Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. FP wasn't mentioned in the article. Criticism of OO doesn't necessarily mean embracing FP, as far as I know.

What other choice is there? Old fashioned procedural? Logic rule driven? Some "other flavor of OO but lets not call it OO" (e.g. component entities)? From a paradigm perspective, there are really only two in active contention.

Re: Java Developers

#49

Post by seanmcdirmid »

threeseed wrote: post #29
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #15

> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…

Actually there are "real systems" being written in FP e.g. Clojure @ SoundCloud. They just aren't architected the same way. Instead of a monolithic WAR you end up with a series of micro services. FP is actually more suited than OO for micro services since it naturally forces developers down the "do one thing well" approach. So I would stop with the "OO is what real people use" nonsense if I were you. Because language…

I worked on Scala for two years seven or so years ago (2005-2007), and I'm not really worried about it (Scala is a great OOP language, and a soso FP language). Compared to Scala, Clojure has a minuscule user base (as one would expect for a Lisp).

Re: Java Developers

#50

Post by agumonkey »

_pmf_ wrote: post #41
threeseed wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there are "real systems" being written in FP e.g. Clojure @ SoundCloud. They just aren't architected the same way. Instead of a monolithic WAR you end up with a series of micro services. FP is actually more suited than OO for micro services since it naturally forces developers down the "do one thing well" approach. So I would stop with the "OO is what real people use" nonsense if I were you. Because language…

> Because languages like Scala and Clojure are rapidly taking over from Java in the enterprise space Let's see how much of the momentum these languages keep after Java 8. Default methods, the new stream API and lamdas provide much what most developers need without introducing baroque features and orthogonal infrastructure.

Doesn't change the point. It's called JAVA but with lazy streams and closures, everything Java culture built prior that will be moot and that's what the article is pointing at. Same thing happened in PHP land, people say PHP is great now, but what is PHP ? PHP5, which is a perlish javaesque thing ? or the regex craze html implicit template system that was PHP4 ? ...

OOP is too verbose by it's essence compared to closures. I tend to see curried functions as anonymous objects (old lisp koans joke on their duality).

Post reply on HN