Java's Cover (2001) • Hacker News Board

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#11

Post by cgh » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

erokar wrote: post #4

Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.

Your comment history indicates you're a Javascript programmer. No comment.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#12

Post by MBlume » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:33 PM UTC

So pg predicts that hackers are going to hate Java. Hackers mostly hate Java. Because of this, pg predicts Java will be unsuccessful. Java's actually pretty successful. This is kind of sobering. Possibly we overestimate the social influence of hackers.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#13

Post by mruniverse » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:34 PM UTC

erokar wrote: post #7

Alupis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)

No, I do not realise that. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Summoning Paul Graham again: http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html

Sustained popularity means it's language that solves a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#14

Post by 27182818284 » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:36 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #6

erokar wrote: post #4

Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.

You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)

>.. otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is.

There are plenty of reasons why we could suppose it is pervasive without the language overall being very good compared to other languages. Entrenchment comes to mind immediately.

It can also be that a language is great for a period in history.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#15

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#16

Post by suyash » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

No one loves it. C, Perl, Python, Smalltalk, and Lisp programmers love their languages. I've never heard anyone say that they loved Java.

- You must be kidding me, ever been to any JUG meeting or JavaOne conference? There are millions of hardcore Java lovers at those places. Java has one of the the biggest developer community world wide. I love Java - it's one of the best programming language till date.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#17

Post by vvanders » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

cgh wrote: post #11

erokar wrote: post #4

Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.

Your comment history indicates you're a Javascript programmer. No comment.

Ouch.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#18

Post by meagain20000 » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

erokar wrote: post #7

Alupis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)

No, I do not realise that. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Summoning Paul Graham again: http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html

It is actually not a bad language and with an IDE like Eclipse or inteliJ you can be quite productive. Sure, they've screwed up majorly a couple of times like inventing JSP and going a bit overboard with J2EE. Overall it is not bad.

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#19

Post by LoSboccacc » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:38 PM UTC

erokar wrote: post #7

Alupis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)

No, I do not realise that. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Summoning Paul Graham again: http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html

if you have to work with a framework of corporate pick in java it usually turns into an ugly mess really fast because many of them came from a decade of crazy soft coders which decided to put everything in xml whether it made sense or not

otherwise it's a very good language if you get to pick which libraries to work with, has some of the best tooling out there and has matured enough to let dev do what they need to do (like having first citizen memory mapped files, heck, it did non blocking i/o before it was cool and still people think node is radically different because of it)

Re: Java's Cover (2001)

#20

Post by crustycoder » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 11:38 PM UTC

cgh wrote: post #11

erokar wrote: post #4

Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.

Your comment history indicates you're a Javascript programmer. No comment.

Ouch. But fair ;-)