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

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Java Developers

#81

Post by pjmlp »

rakoo wrote: post #73
matthewmacleod wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simplicity -- none, if talking about the resulting code. Bollocks. Java code can be over-complex and lack elegance, but it's not the worst offender - sweet spot. Stability -- none, regarding possible law suits from Oracle. Yes, it does matter for a company. Yes, Oracle did that in the past. Bollocks. I challenge you to provide an example of a Java developer being sued for using the language. Performance -- poor, rega…

> I challenge you to provide an example of a Java developer being sued for using the language. Google ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google

Google is not a software developer, rather a corporation that tried to work around paying for J2ME licenses.

Re: Java Developers

#82

Post by pjmlp »

vijucat wrote: post #35

Blame the 90s : the Gang of Four design patterns book, UML, et al. If you wrote code that did not abstract enough, such as not using factories, it was jaw-droppingly obvious to your colleagues that you were not good enough. FP and Scala owe the sheer verbosity of Java a lot for their current success :-)

Targeted at C++ and Smalltalk developers.

Re: Java Developers

#83

Post by mike_hearn »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55
DCKing wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because we all know, Google is known for hiring flakes who can't code or design real systems. The primary reason Java is the language used for Android is the very same reason that Android is used so much in enterprises: it is easy to learn, and easy to get developers for. But the language's primary redeeming quality has become an economic one, and not that the language itself is so rewarding.

Most of the Googlers I know writing Java code would rather not be writing Java code. They would prefer Python or even Javascript (and a lot of FP enthusiasts also), but Java is what Android needs so Java it is. I would be very surprised if Google was hiring many people who only knew Java or were even very enthusiastic about it. Perhaps the only language more reviled than Java in Google is C++.

I worked at Google for a long time.

The most problematic language at Google was (by far) Python. Mostly because tools that would start out as small Python scripts would evolve to become large Python codebases that ended up being unmaintainable.

There were several examples of unmanageable Python codebases at Google that got rewritten in C++ or Java. I'm struggling to think of examples of code going in the opposite direction.

This does not mean Python is a bad language. It just makes a different set of tradeoffs in its design. C++ and Java were designed with features that are known to increase verbosity but make it easier for large teams to work together. Python wasn't.

Re: Java Developers

#84

Post by mike_hearn »

DCKing wrote: post #39
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that domain, yes! How many UI frameworks are functional (beyond I think...Om?)?

It's unfair to focus on "UI frameworks" when UI frameworks are specifically aimed at supporting client OSes where they have to deal with "preferred frameworks", all of which were developed when OO was all the craze. Functional programming has only been discovered as a practical paradigm quite recently! Besides, implying that "big serious programs" necessarily implies that they are UI programs is completely wrong. Uns…

Functional programming has been known and researched for decades. Mostly what happens is the obviously good features filter down into more mainstream languages, hence the new stream extension in Java 8, and the rest (lazy by default?) gets left behind.

Re: Java Developers

#85

Post by mike_hearn »

dmacvicar wrote: post #60

While I have seen what you describe, I am not sure if it is only specific to Java, and I have to admit that I enjoy working with the Java platform. There are things in the ecosystem that annoy me more. We use Java in a non-standard environment: products built on a enterprise Linux distribution, and therefore built using the same infrastructure and conventions: everything is built from source as a dependency chain, so…

Are you really generalising to an entire industry from the build procedure for a build tool? Why are you even building Maven in the first place? My experience with Maven has been:

1) Download and unzip

2) Run it

and that's all that was necessary. Meanwhile on the fly dependency resolution is very nice and a feature of most modern platforms.

Re: Java Developers

#86

Post by frugalmail »

threeseed wrote: post #58
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Well there is an overwhelming trend towards Scala/Clojure both in the enterprise and for large internet sites. When companies like Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, Netflix, eBay etc start embracing FP languages you can be sure the rest of the world takes notice. My point was that serious companies are doing serious work with FP languages.

references?

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=java%2C%20clojure&cmp...

Re: Java Developers

#87

Post by mike_hearn »

icebraining wrote: post #20
skrebbel wrote: post #11

A lot of these bloated patterns that got popular in the Java world have shorter, simpler alternatives when programming in a functional style. You often don't need multiple child classes to implement a template method if you can just pass a function to the constructor. You don't need a BananaFactory if you can just inject a createBanana function. Remarkably many Gang of Four design patterns are unneeded once you can p…

I don't think Android supports Java 8, though.

There's a thing called RetroLambda which purports to be a backport of lambdas to older versions of the runtime/platform.

However hopefully now ART is successfully launching they'll go back to upgrading the base foundation and move it beyond Java 6.

Re: Java Developers

#88

Post by on_and_off »

Alphasite_ wrote: post #24
icebraining wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Android supports Java 8, though.

I thought there was some work to support Lambdas in ART?

There is a retro-lambda library that allows to write lambda expressions. It is compiled to jdk 6 compatible bytecode though.

Re: Java Developers

#89

Post by mike_hearn »

nick_riviera wrote: post #9

I disagree with this, as a part time Java developer (I do C# most of the time). The points I disagree with: 1. OO is bad . Every paradigm is bad if you misuse it. If you build deep abstractions then you will hang yourself regardless. Some very elegant and simple designs can emerge from OO code, but only if you think about the problems first. The majority of pain consists of forgetting to do that step. There is no mag…

What's your beef with JavaFX? I've been using it recently and it's a surprisingly well designed and nice UI framework. Parts of it are kind of immature and there are occasional surprising holes in its functionality, but that's because the current generation (after dropping the scripting language) is only a couple of versions old.

Re: Java Developers

#90

Post by boobsbr »

TeeWEE wrote: post #7

While I do agree that java developers are often low quality developers. And than java frameworks are often bloated with Dependency Injection, Factories, Proxies etc... I disagree that Android has the same problems. To me it looks like Android was actually written in lean-and-mean java. Ok its still Object Oriented. But for UIX interfaces, Object Orientation makes a lot of sense... There are some areas in the android…

> While I do agree that java developers are often low quality developers.

That can be said for ANY language.

Post reply on HN