341–350 of 585 posts
> Ruby on Rails is in jeopardy of being added to this list. It has fallen out of favor, and it is tough to find developers for it. What once made it unique is now available in other languages. I beg to differ. There are 1000+ Rails developers actively looking for work on railsdevs.com
That's like calling a chair you built 10 years ago "technical debt" because it can eventually break. No, it's just a fucking product you made. The fact it has to be maintained doesn't mean it is "debt", it's just like any other asset. You don't get to your car and think "that's technical debt". There is nothing technical about it. It's a tool with maintenance needs. The difference is choosing worse now to get it fast…
Right, but we always do that. We always make some tradeoff to get things shipped faster. And that's fine, otherwise we wouldn't ship things. It's a balance - and the general meta of "all technical debt bad" is harmful to actually building working software.
I feel like this is heavily connected with the idea of legacy. I grew up in Scotland, and lots of the buildings, culture, etc, have been around for hundreds of years. It would be nice to feel like something I was building would last as long and outlive me. It doesn’t though. Sometimes I think that this is just the nature of software development. Most of the stuff I build is built to solve an immediate business proble…
Why though? Does it really matter if something outlives you by 200 years? 500? On a not-that-long timeline like 10,000 years, nothing lasts. The "cathedral-like" timeline is completely arbitrary I think. Imho, there’s freedom in accepting that nothing I produce will last a long time.
Now, how many people are actively playing those games? Probably very few people. But at least it's still there when people get the urge, or decide to play through a collection.
One day the apps (products) may themselves become technical debt, but that is not the fault of the language they were written in.
I think it's normal. Some systems I've built were quite sticky in the sense that they started as prototypes to be scrapped once we figure out the "real" system architecture, and 8 years later they're still in use and integrated into dozens of business processes, so hard to replace. In general, looking back at old code I wrote it seems my solutions were better when I was more naive / less experienced, as I would often…
> as I tend to over-engineer systems and constantly doubt / second-guess my technical decisions I find this as well. I also think that there is a sub-conscious fear as you become more senior that you need to justify that with more elaborate/complex solutions. In my experience there are also a lot of people in software who never come out of the other side of that view and constantly equate "complex" with "good". Being…
My hatred of the complex solutions is so deep that I just suffer through all of the commentary silently.
> My entire career is now technical debt, or the code has been deprecated. My fellow dev often laugh when I tell them that instead of looking at all the long dead techs that are not useful to me anymore, my way to feel good is to look back at all the long dead techs that I didn't bother to learn . And, geez, is the graveyard huge. > Java Applets were also a big thing once upon a time. They were slow, and having the c…
> And most devs hating on Java are using an IDE written mainly in Java (all the JetBrains ones): the irony of that one gives me the giggles. Guilty as charged! I hate using Java because everything written in java seems to blend into the same indistinguishable swamp of classes with meaningless names, full of methods that constantly find new and interesting ways to obscure what your program is actually trying to do. De…
If you're coding in Java, you've better think OO is a great idea. It's an object oriented language. And despite having loosely bolted on FP paradigms, that's not really going to change.
Although I feel most of the criticism against OO is actually more like a critique of the FactoryBuilderFactoryImpl-style application of design patterns, which is something else and really unfashionable today in Java.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java's records are immutable.
And most shops likely aren't using a JVM new enough to use records, and it will be a while before they are able to upgrade. And even then, most 3rd-party libraries out there won't use records, because they want to be compatible with the JVMs their users use. Hell, most popular libraries available on Maven Central are compiled with JDK8, or, at best, JDK11. Aside from immutable instances, it would be nice if 'final' w…
But if we're going to critique Java honestly, can't we stick to the language the way it looks today and not the way it looked nearly ten years ago?
Modern Java is quite pleasant to work with. One by one the papercuts and footguns have been fixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And most devs hating on Java are using an IDE written mainly in Java (all the JetBrains ones): the irony of that one gives me the giggles. Guilty as charged! I hate using Java because everything written in java seems to blend into the same indistinguishable swamp of classes with meaningless names, full of methods that constantly find new and interesting ways to obscure what your program is actually trying to do. De…
"Anyone who writes class names like FactoryBuilderFactoryImpl and claims to walk in the light is at best a scoundrel, and at worst a follower of a religion so dark we don't name it in polite company." Awesome quote ... LOL.