71–80 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, I wrote a longer form of basically this. I wouldn't want the person posting to make the language decisions at my company.
Or have to work with that person, which is especially bad since one of the goals of this kind of posts is to advertise your company.
Is it me, or does the article feel like it is written by someone who didn’t actually bother to learn Kotlin. Instead they learnt the bare minimum syntax and tried to write Java in Kotlin. The author complains a lot about how Kotlin is different from Java. Err.. it is a new language — it is supposed to be different — otherwise why bother? > I have my favorite set of JVM languages. Java in /main and Groovy in /test are…
time kotlinc Hi.kt user 4.5s !! (OK IN IDE on second run)
trailing comma not allowed
no python like package manager. import mail? no
a = b = 1 // assignments are not expressions
Is it me, or does the article feel like it is written by someone who didn’t actually bother to learn Kotlin. Instead they learnt the bare minimum syntax and tried to write Java in Kotlin. The author complains a lot about how Kotlin is different from Java. Err.. it is a new language — it is supposed to be different — otherwise why bother? > I have my favorite set of JVM languages. Java in /main and Groovy in /test are…
The other problem I have with this post is that it did not state desires/hopes up front. The intro only mentions compile-time null-safety and less boilerplate (for which many languages are better than Java), then adds his desires throughout the text. Thus his complaints seem not a thought through list of failures to satisfy specific desires, but just randomly throwing rocks at vague targets. My 2c.
val list = listOf("Saab", "Volvo") val map = mapOf("firstName" to "John", "lastName" to "Doe") The above seems a really strange decision for a "new" language - why would you not just use the most common structure, being JSON?
So you could trivially do your own listOf or mapOf that creates whatever data structure you want, whereas languages with special syntax for this tend to hardcode the result of it. That's a valid choice, sure, but just that there are tradeoffs here rather than it being obviously better one way or the other.
val list = listOf("Saab", "Volvo") val map = mapOf("firstName" to "John", "lastName" to "Doe") The above seems a really strange decision for a "new" language - why would you not just use the most common structure, being JSON?
"Kotlin changed the extends keyword into the : operator, which is already used to separate variable name from its type. Back to C++ syntax? For me it’s confusing." Not only C++; C# also. It's not very hard to confuse the author, is it :) I understand it's different from Java he's used to, but that doesn't mean one can hold every such difference against Kotlin. Not being Java isn't in and of itself a fault of a langua…
TypeScript also has the weird reversed type declaration. I've never understood it; it's so much less natural to read. Having the type first allows you to easily mentally parse it as "A Foo named bob".
It is not weird, in fact it goes all the way back to Algol, a decade before C was invented.
Good and clear summary of Kotlin warts. In the end I couldn't suppress the thought that there was some hidden Polish-Russian rivalry going on ("Kotlin" == "Heinz") ;-)
Heinz is American (and, in the context of the article, a global brand), not Russian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I have overstepped a bit (edited the post), but I will stick to the "did not bother" and "no clue". Documentation for Kotlin is really nice and it is there together with amazing Kotlin Koans online. Do you think that author who so eagerly complains about Kotlin was so eagerly learning it?
It's still pretty much invective (seriously, hateful?) and an invitation to a dumb programming language poop-flinging fest. As to the author of the thing, they just wrote about not liking Kotlin, you're the one who is taking this as some sort of personal affront. How do you know how long they spent learning it? You don't.