Java
Thats your first mistake bucko
I also think Java is shit, but if you manage to get a NullPointerException while writing a hello world program, maybe anon is just not cut out for computers?
I always loved that Java has a NullPointerException but doesn’t have the concept of pointers in the language (only references).
That is because they planed to add pointers and then gave up.
I can’t tell if you are making a joke but I can believe it could happen if it’s Java
I mean… they have them. And
unsafe. You’re just not supposed to use them
C# has
NullReferenceExceptionand it actually makes sense.
Am I weird for liking Java? I feel like it just makes so much more sense than other languages.
C# is nearly the same, but much, much better.
- It doesn’t (usually) come with the Java culture 8 layers of abstraction. This isn’t in the Java language. This isn’t in OO. Yet nearly every Java programmer makes things way more complicated than it needs to be.
- It’s a prettier language. Similar syntax with less bullshit.
- It’s open source
- It’s still multiplatform. Modern dotnet / C# works on anything.
- Both Visual Studio and Visual Studio code are great IDEs that blow Eclipse out of the water
- It’s one of the most common business languages.
- It’s going to be supported forever.
If I could restrict the world of programming to two languages, it’d be C# and Rust. C# for most things and Rust for a lower level language.
Kids will never understand this. The same is with
JScript.
Nah, C# suffers from a lot of the same shit Java does. Needing everything to be a class is just no longer a good design choice (if it ever was). AOT support is still lacking. I don’t get, why it does not have typdefs. I think the solution / project structure is unnecessary and I could probably think of more stuff I dislike about C#. But imho, it still beats Java.
Golang is my choice over C# any time. I strongly prefer how interfaces are handled and I actually like the error handling.
Needing everything to be a class
In 2015 they added scripting. If you’re making a real project, you should absolutely use classes. (It’s not that hard. Don’t do the Java shit.) But you can absolutely write one off scripts just fine.
AOT support is still lacking.
Publishing your app as Native AOT produces an app that’s self-contained and that has been ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled to native code. Source.
I think you misunderstood my post. I am quite proficient with C#. I just think other languages do it better.
AOT is not where it should be yet, because not all libraries have full stripping support.
I strongly prefer how interfaces are handled
It’s better than Java, but they still chose to walk headfirst into the same trap that bites Java developers in the ass: associating interface implementations with the struct/class rather than the interface itself.
When you have two interfaces that each require you to implement a function with the same name but a different signature, you’re in for a bad time featuring an abomination of wrapper types.
Edit: Clarity.
On that last note, can’t you use the explicit interface implementation in C#?
e.g.
public class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface { void IControl.Paint() { System.Console.WriteLine("IControl.Paint"); } void ISurface.Paint() { System.Console.WriteLine("ISurface.Paint"); } }Edit: I misread your comment as “like in C#” and wrote this as an answer to the non-existent question of “can’t you use explicit interfaces like in C#”
I haven’t kept up with recent Java developments, but with Go, you’re out of luck. Interface implementations are completely implicit. You don’t even have an
implementskeyword.Edit: For Java, a cursory search suggests that they haven’t yet added explicit interfaces: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19111090/does-java-support-explicit-interface-implementation-like-c
He mentioned C#, which does let you explicitly choose to implement same-name functions of two interfaces with different code
For some reason, my brain inserted a “like” before “in C#”, and answered the question of “can’t you use explicit interfaces like in C#.”
just one more oop bro I swear
Pure oopium. All oop ‘design patterns’ exist solely to overcome the inherent flaws of oop.
just one more oop bro I swear
Didn’t understand my criticisms of Go and Java’s interfaces, or do you just enjoy LARPing as a senior programmer while living in a small world where the term “interface” strictly means object-oriented programming and not the broader idea of being a specification describing how systems can interact with each other?
Is there anything I can read about how we’re moving away from everything being a class?
No sorry, but try literally any other language ;-)
I’ll take Python and Fortran, thank you very much
Python should be burning in hell
Nah, that’s Java and JavaScript.
I only had one job that used C#, and it was the worst job I ever had. Even with the worst possible way to be introduced to the language, I still love it.
Isn’t Visual Studio Code just a fancy editor and not an IDE?
I like how straight-forward the syntax is. And it also seems orderly to have everything be a class. There’s a system to it.
I’m using C++ for a project now and I like it in a similar way, but there’s more freedom (everything doesn’t HAVE to be a class). So with C++ I’ll never go back to Java (unless it’s for a job).
No. Every language has its haters. There’s a reason Java is so widely used. If you like it, keep at it.
Yes and the reason is because millions of lines of production code were written and it isn’t worth rewriting them.
Plenty of languages around now that don’t have 30 years of baggage and the specter of Oracle hanging over it.
Now a days many businesses choose Go.
I don’t really like Go either, but it’s better than Java, and it’s pretty good for Big Software ™. In the end, every language has some problems. Java just has all of them.
Now a days many businesses choose Go.
Many companies may choose something other than Java, but Java is still the behemoth.
Such a decision is taken when the company is completely new or if it is a green field project.
Even in the case of the latter, companies just choose to stick with their existing tech (read: expertise and experience of their tech teams)…
The only reason not to choose Go is legacy systems with SOAP. That shit will never die.
I thought I like Java until I tried Kotlin. It’s everything I liked about Java, but with everything wrong with it fixed.
I used to be very into Java and Kotlin looks nice. What’s your favorite IDE?
I use IntelliJ Idea. The free Community Edition is all you need.
Thanks.
I am a certified Java hater, but you’re allowed to like it. If simple and objected oriented is what you want, I can see the attraction, and it has a good and mature ecosystem.
Honestly I would consider that a bit weird. At the very least, old-fashioned. If you like Java, it makes me think you haven’t tried a better more modern language to compare it with.
The first language I learned was Python and I hated it. I have not tried Rust yet but I have tried all the Cs.
Edit: added missing not
(I assume you left out a “not” there)
You should definitely give Rust a shot. It is only conceptually similar to C++ but otherwise very different.
Which would you suggest? (And if you say python, I will attack you with a pointed stick)
Definitely not Python. Rust is very nice though.
No, Java has lots of merits. For example, once you know layout managers, you can have a resizable GUI app in no time. It’s the exact opposite of arranging things pixel by pixel. You just define “I want a grid of these buttons south and a big text field in the center” and Java will do the rest. I whip up apps like this for the silliest things, like noting which dungeon has what rotating boss this week in a game, so it’s more convinient than noting it in a text file.
And GUI is even easier and faster with Compose.
I might have agreed a decade or two ago, when I knew no better. But today, I find the tribalism surrounding programming languages comical.
I don’t particularly like Java, but I use it because it pays the bills. Similarly, I use C++ (which I prefer) when my work requires it.
I don’t particularly like Java, but I use it because it pays the bills. Similarly, I use C++ (which I prefer) when my work requires it.
I mean, anon is not arguing against that. They’re saying the language is shit regardless of how much it is used in business. I don’t think they are entirely wrong.
Tell us more ancient one, your heroic tale of “giving up against the endless weight of capitalism” is fascinating.
“giving up against the endless weight of capitalism”
We just call it “having a job” nowadays
Lol I always forget how conservative software devs are, oop
Love the dramatics.
This ancient one has learned the art of pragmatism. A little time in the trenches of enterprise development can do that – turn passionate ideals into practical choices.
Some days it’s C++, some days it’s Java, Python and so on. In the end, the code compiles, and the ancient one get paid.
Dramatics are my main form of communication so thank you for your appreciation
If it took anon 30 minutes to write hello world in java, programming is not for anon.
We bow to your wisdom, wise gatekeeper
It’s like 5 lines of trivial code
Some of us try to understand what we’re doing, rather than just copy/paste. It’s easy to discount how difficult learning the basics of something is when you’re already past it.
And most IDEs will autogenerate it for you.
That said, I think it highlights everything I hate about Java:
public class MyClass {
Why does it need to be a class? I’m not constructing anything?
public static void main(String[] args) {
Why is this a method? It should be a top-level function. Also, in most cases, I don’t care about the arguments, so those should be left out.
System.out.println(“Hello world!”);
Excuse me, what? Where did System come from, and why does it have an “out” static member? Also, how would I format it if I felt so inclined? So many questions.
And here are examples from languages I prefer:
C:
#include “stdio.h”
Ok, makes sense, I start with nothing.
int main() {
Makes sense that we’d have an entrypoint.
printf(“Hello world”);
Again, pretty simple.
Python:
print(“Hello world”)
Ok, Python cheats.
Rust:
fn main() {
Ooh, entrypoint.
println!(“Hello world”);
I have to understand macros enough to realize this is special, but that’s it.
In C, Python, and Rust, complexity starts later, whereas Java shoves it down your throat.
Thank you. If you bothered to read a 5 minutes tutorial instead of posting to 4chan, you could also reach this level of knowledge.
Don’t be mad, you’re the one that commented lol. It’s like you’re choosing to be upset
I thanked you for your reply and suggested reading a tutorial. How does that make me mad and upset? You’re acting weird.
My old boss is one of the 3 initial creators of Java. He ran our department the same way this greentext reads.
He was also a paedo. You can figure out the rest if you dig.
Known for : the Java programming language, internet sex crime and the fantasy defense.
Are you saying OP is…
No.
deleted by creator
From PIE root “pau-” (few, little), to Latin-transliterated via Greek “paed” (boy, child), and spelled thusly to distinguish from “ped-” (foot), circa 1600AD. Reduced to “pedo” from “paedo” as part of the shift in Americanization of accents and spelling in the late 1700s early 1800s.
Confidently incorrect.
C# masterrace and I’m tired of pretending it’s not
After close to two decades of programming, C# is still the best language I’ve used. While some of the newer features seem a bit weird, I’d say it’s one of the few languages that has never got in the way and has just let me write code that made sense. Even with all the improvements Java has made over the years it’s still nowhere near as good as what C# was like maybe 15 years ago.
The same goes for everyone’s other “fav” language, Python. Ruby has been a better beginner scripting language than Python for many years, and while Rails is definitely a ghetto, as a language Ruby is great at teaching great programming fundamentals.
C# is pretty good generally - I know it far better than any other and it pays my bills! - but it certainly has its weak points. Particularly around the newer features, a lot of them feel really rushed and just kind of shitty.
The one I hate the most is the whole “nullable” pattern. It’s a total mess. Having to mark up files as
nullable enable, having to mark methods with a bunch of attributes, and the way that it works differently if it’s a value type or a reference type, it’s just so half-baked.If you spend some time with a more modern language like Rust or Swift then you’ll quickly start to notice C#’s weaknesses.
I feel like you’re doing something wrong with the nullables… I’m pretty sure you don’t need to mark up files, you can just enable it on the whole project? I’m not sure about the attributes, you might have a point there, but it just makes sense for value vs reference types IMO, since value types are already implicitly different in terms of nullability.
But yeah, I can imagine it’s half-baked, since nullable reference types (that’s the name, previously reference types were just nullable by default with no extra features) are a more recent addition to the language, one that wasn’t built with them in mind.
If you create a new project from scratch, yes, you can enable it project-wide. If you have a project which has a bunch of code predates nullable reference types, and you enable it project wide, you’ll have a billion warnings about it. Also, they’re warnings and not errors by default, which just encourages developers to either ignore or suppress them.
So the reality is that you need to remember when you’re making new classes to add the attribute, and then deal with external stuff - which isn’t always clearly marked whether it’s nullable or not unless it’s using attributes, by the way… just such a total mess.
They should have just gone with something more like Rust’s “Option” type. Would have been clearer for codebases that have to deal with a mix. They also could have clearly and decisively deprecated non-nullable reference types and just told people they were going to remove support in some future version so we could all migrate to them properly like we’ve done for .NET Core/.NET 5+.
C# is nicer Java, but I think it’s still fundamentally a poor language.
Rust master race:
fn main() { println!("Hello world!"); }Unfortunately, the time you save typing you’ll spend compiling, so there’s that…
My inner mathematician respects Java. The first step in any problem is defining your universe
You may find JML interesting. https://www.openjml.org/
Not using Eclipse helps. Using Scala helps even more
Really want to go to La Scala one day but I looked it up and the tickets are like 500 euros. An eclipse is much cheaper
Hello World
30 minutes of boilerplate
writing imports
$ cat <<EOF > Hello.java public class Hello { public static void main(String args[]) { System.out.println("Hello world!"); } } EOF $ java Hello.java Hello world!ok
Welcome to java, we have a couple unconventional ways of doing things, but overall I’m like every other mainstream oo language.
People: AHH! Scary!
Welcome to python. your knowledge of me wont help you elsewhere as my syntax is purposefully obtuse and unique. Forget about semicolons, one missed space and your code is as worthless as you after learning this language.
People: Hello based department
Oh my god I got fucked by a python script once because of a single space. It took forever to figure out what went wrong
I refuse to code in Python without a really good IDE and linting like PyCharm. When using PyCharm it’s very rare I have issues like this, because it catches them in one way or another, but I notice it catches those kinds of issues a lot when I’m coding soooooooo…
I have also setup the IDE to specifically color code comments like
’ # End If and ’ # Next
in the same style as their beginning statements as I find it much easier to visually scam through code when they are present.
You can’t use Python without a linter. I have everything setup in vscode to use tabs yet copilot autocomplete insists on inserting random spaces everywhere creating indentation errors. The linter is essential to quickly see and fix them.
**kwargs“No, I don’t use type annotations because they don’t actually do anything. In fact I purposefully give this parameter different types for different behaviors. How is that confusing?”
Python has its drawbacks but it also has a pretty useful standard library so as a language for small scripts, one can do much worse
It is possible to dislike both. For me SmallTalk-like languages are peak. Message passing for life!
Python:
print("Hello world!")C:
#include <stdio.h> int main() { printf("Hello World!"); return(0); }EDIT: POSIX-compatible shell:
echo "Hello World!"PHP:
Hello World!Rust:
Still fighting the burrito check fil er
Python2 is only one character longer:
print “Hello world!”
And you get proper data types too.
Shell is only meant for duct tape scripts, you know to tie two regular compiled programs together
This is getting a little better nowadays.
> cat Hello.java void main() { System.out.println("Hello, World!"); } > java --enable-preview Hello.java Hello, World!Things to notice:
- No compilation step.
- No class declaration.
- Main method is not
public static - No
String[] args.
This still uses preview features though. However, like you demonstrated already, compilation is no longer a required step for simplistic programs like this.
Microsoft Java is a one-liner these days.
> cat program.cs Console.WriteLine("Hello, World!"); > dotnet run Hello, World!System.base.stuff.output.out.printfunctions.println
Or so it felt every time you wanted to dump something into the console…
Main method is not public static
It must be somewhere under the hood. Otherwise, it wont be callable and it would require an instance of an object to call. Unless the object here is the Java environment?
No String[] args
They are just optional I’m sure, like C and C++. You still need them to read command line arguments.
All in all, these syntax improvements are welcome. I already moved on to Kotlin for Android development though.
Main method is not public static
It must be somewhere under the hood. Otherwise, it wont be callable and it would require an instance of an object to call. Unless the object here is the Java environment?
No. From JEP-445:
If an unnamed class has an instance main method rather than a static main method then launching it is equivalent to the following, which employs the existing anonymous class declaration construct:
new Object() { // the unnamed class's body }.main();No String[] args
They are just optional I’m sure, like C and C++. You still need them to read command line arguments.
Without the preview feature enabled, it is not an optional part of the method signature. It specifically looks for a
main(String[])signature.I am not in the mood to read a technical document, but I don’t think the resulting binary/byte code should be different between the two “hello world” programs. But then again, why not?
Without the preview feature enabled, it is not an optional part of the method signature. It specifically looks for a main(String[]) signature.
Ah ha! So that’s what’s going on here. They almost got it right. They had the potential to make a lot of the boilerplate optional or implicit under relevant circumstances, but instead the language has two explicit switchable modes.
Can I write a Java application in “preview feature”?
I mentioned this uses preview features twice in the first comment regarding this, so I don’t know why you’re "ah ha"ing. Also you don’t need to read the technical document, I’ve quoted the entirety of the relevant text. I provided it as a citation.
You seem confused about preview features. It’s not a switchable mode to reduce boiler plate. I find the name very clear, but here is more information. From JEP-12
A preview feature is a new feature of the Java language, Java Virtual Machine, or Java SE API that is fully specified, fully implemented, and yet impermanent. It is available in a JDK feature release to provoke developer feedback based on real world use; this may lead to it becoming permanent in a future Java SE Platform.
As an example, JDK 17 added pattern matching for switch statements as a preview, and by JDK 21 it was added as a full fledged feature that doesn’t require usage of the enable preview flag. Presumably in some future release of Java this feature will not require the usage of a flag.
It is pretty late for me. Sorry. And thank you for your patience. Repeating it three times helped.
It will be interesting to find out if the resulting binary is the same or not and what’s possible once it matured.
Yes, because it’s genuinely not a static method. It’s an instance method. Also the signature is different. It’s not some sort of mere syntactic trick that translates
void main()topublic static void main(String[] args).
He types REALLY slow.
I got the impression they skipped the hello world cause it was too easy and they wanted to get right to writing their app, so they moved on to more advanced stuff without having a real grasp of the basics
Just imagine how it must have been to code Minecraft 🤣
They only had to deal with LWJGL. The corporate java world has to use Spring.
Edit: They also had to deal with all the fans saying they should’ve written it in C#.
And much of the confusion and frustration at “Java” is actually because of Spring, or the “enterprise” nonsense making everything unnecessarily complex. You can just… write Java without any of that.
You shouldn’t though, because Kotlin exists, which fixes everything that’s wrong with Java while still being 100% compatible, so even in legacy projects you can mix and match and write new code in Kotlin without needing to rewrite any of the existing Java.
It’s not corporate world, it’s web. Spring de facto is the only modern way to build web services and integrations in Java and Spring comes with DI because it’s the way to build efficient extendable framework.
Micronaut and Vert.X also work, and with Kotlin you unlock that ecosystem as well, for example Ktor. One could argue whether Spring is still a modern framework. It works very well, but there is a lot of “magic” and hard to understand annotations with Spring that make it harder to learn and debug than it could be.
Of course the reality in enterprise environments is that change is often very difficult and such changes are a hard sell when you already have millions of lines of Spring code.
But if you are not locked to Spring, there are better options. DI being build in is another negative to me. Spring does everything, and any project using it becomes a “Spring project”. Which robs you of any choice. If you use Ktor for example, it’s only a library, not a framework, and only does the web component. You choose your own DI library that works for you, you choose your own serialization, you choose your own persistence/database solutions, and you can replace Ktor with something else 3 years down the line, if needed, without touching any of the other parts if the project.
C# is just M$ java IMO. What a crap language too.
object orientated programming is the wrong idiom for almost all problems, and even in the few cases where it makes sense, you have to be very careful or it’ll hurt you
Idk. Maybe it’s because I learned OOP first that it makes more sense to me; but OOP is a good way to break down complex problems and encapsulate them into easily understable modules. Languages like Java almost force everyone on the project to use similar paradigms and styles, so it’s easier for everyone to understand the code base. Whenever I’ve worked on large non-OOP projects, it was a hard-to-maintain mess. I’ve never worked on projects such as the Linux kernel, and I’m hoping it’s not an unmaintainable mess, so I’m pretty sure it’s possible to not use OOP on large projects and still be maintainable. I am curious if they still use OOP concepts, even though they are not using strictly OOP.
I also like procedural python for quick small scripts. And although Rust isn’t strictly OOP, it obviously borrows heavily from it. Haskell is neat, but I haven’t used it enough to be proficient or develop good sense of application architecture.
I’ve done production work in C, but still used largely OOP concepts; and the code looks much different than code I’ve seen that was written before C++ was popular.
The Linux kernel actually uses quite a bit of OOP ideas. You have modules that are supposed to have a clear interface with the rest of the world, and they (ab)use structs to basically work like objects. If you try hard enough, you can even do “inheritance” with them, like with their struct kobject. It is actually somewhat well-thought-out, imo. No need to go full OOP, just pick some of the good parts, and avoid the MappingModelFactoryServiceImpl hell or the madness that is C++.
I have been trying to be more functional but I still use classes for things like loading/modeling configs. What are some common situations where using an object is a good solution?
I use python if that helps at all.
What are some common situations where using an object is a good solution?
It depends on what you mean by “object”
- Some kind of structured data?
- Some named type which fulfills an interface?
When you have some kind of structured data, having a class to represent it is fine. If you’re able to give it type annotations, that’s much better than passing around random dictionaries.
When you need polymorphism and have an interface where some method on an object needs to exist (e.g.
car.honk()), that’s also fine as long as you avoid creating subclasses and using inheritance. If you need some car that can honk like a truck and drive like a racecar, use composition.What I would consider a good use of classes (more specifically, nominal types) is dependent types. The idea is that you use the type system to enforce invariants for data.
For example, suppose you have a string for a user email. It might be a valid email string, or it might be garbage like “z#%@(”=))??". You have a function for updating the user email in a database, and it requires the email string to be valid.
One approach is to validate the email string after receiving it from the user. That works, but what if your coworker creates a new form and forgets to validate the email string there? Bad data gets passed downstream to functions that expect well-formed data.
Another approach is to validate the email string at the top of every function that expects well-formed data. That also works, but now you’re validating the same string multiple times and pasting
validate_email(email)everywhere.With a dependent type, you have a
ValidatedEmailtype and a constructor for it. The constructor will return an instance of theValidatedEmailif and only if the email string is valid. Any function that expects a valid email will only accept aValidatedEmail, and not a string. If your coworker creates a new form and forgets to validate the email, the type system will complain about a string being passed instead of aValidatedEmail. You also shift the responsibility of validating the email to wherever there is a boundary between validated and unvalidated data, avoiding unnecessary validation since you know aValidatedEmailis already valid.It’s an extremely useful paradigm for avoiding logic errors, but it’s unfortunately not as common as it should be.
Very cool! Thanks for this
That’s good advice but I would add that Java really sucks at using “the type system to enforce invariants for data” and that this approach doesn’t have much to do with what most (especially Java programmers) would consider OOP. I die inside a little bit every time I need to use code generators or runtime reflection to solve a problem that really should not require it.
Objects are great for game programming.
Stuff like enemies, bullets, loot, items, etc. are constantly changing and affecting each other. This makes it difficult to program in fixed functions that run through and crosscheck a bunch of constantly changing arrays. It makes logical sense to have objects with their own functions stored in dynamic lists instead of arrays. A lot of the properties are used by several different objecs, like coordinates or health points, so it also makes sense to describe them in classes.
So, I’d say that it’s a useful way to classify data that is very dynamic, or when different functions need to run depending on that data.
I don’t like putting all code into classes, because a lot of code doesn’t need that kind of flexibility.
I really enjoyed the text.
From the perspective of a python programmer it all seems valid.
A Java-Dev would probably write the same about an embedded engineer.
Sorry, you had a small error in the spacings of your post; Therefore I cannot parse a thing you’re saying. Didn’t mean to scare you with a semicolon either. It’s just a tool in language’s to end a clause and begin a related, independent clause. That could be useful somewhere…
As embedded dev, the stack trace alone scares me. It would be funny to watch the Java runtime blow the 8 frame deep stack on a PIC18 tho
Honestly, I prefer C to Java, it’s incredibly simple without all the BS that Java throws at you:
- interfaces - compiler will fail if you provide the wrong types; w/ Java, figuring out what types to pass is an effort unto itself
- functions - everything needs to be in a class; even callback functions are wrapped in a class (behind the scenes if you use modern Java); in C, you just pass a function
- performance - Java uses a stop the world GC, which can cause issues if you have enough data churn; in C, you decide when/if you want to allocate or free memory, no surprises
There are certainly some bad parts, but all in all, when I run into an issue in C, I know it’s my fault, whereas in Java, there are a million reasons why my assumptions could be considered valid, and I have to dig around the docs to find that one sentence that tells me where I went wrong w/ the stuff I chose.
That said, I prefer Rust to both because:
- get fancy stack traces like I do in Java (I really miss stack traces in C)
- compiler catches most of my stupid mistakes, Java will just throw exceptions
- still no stupid interface hell, I just satisfy a specific trait and we’re good
- generally pretty concise for what it is; I can rarely point to a piece of syntax and say it’s unnecessary
I use:
- Python - scripting and small projects
- Rust - serious projects or things that need to be fast
- Go - relatively simple IO-heavy projects that need to be pretty fast
- C - embedded stuff where I don’t want to mess w/ the Rust toolchain
Java has been absent from my toolbox for well over a decade, and I actively avoid it to this day because it causes me to break out in hives.
For over a decade?
In the last decade java finally is starting to catch up! The latest java releases have finally given us the ability to pass through a function, and work more functional.
And you can choose any GC you want, even less “stop the world” ones, but who got the time to figure out which GC they actually want… The memory allocation from C is what haunts my dreams more than the GC from java.
Still, I really want to give Rust a look, if only I gave myself enough time.
The latest java releases have finally given us the ability to pass through a function, and work more functional.
Which AFAIK is still a class under the hood. That doesn’t particularly matter for developers, but it’s still odd.
But honestly, if I’m going to use anything on the JVM, I’ll just use Kotlin. Java is kind of catching up, but Kotlin is just so much cleaner IMO. But if I’m not stuck w/ the JVM, I’ll use one of the others I mentioned.
The memory allocation from C
Eh, it’s honestly not so bad, provided you’re using it for the type of work where C is suited. For most embedded work, I just pass on the stack (esp. w/ the new variable length arrays on the stack, which C++ doesn’t have), so no need to
malloc()orfree()most of the time. If I’m building a larger program, I’ll probably not use C, because it just doesn’t have the features I want for larger-scale development work, and I definitely won’t use C++ because that’s a nightmare of conflicting legacy features.Rust is my go-to if I know it’ll be large-ish and I don’t have any particular restraints on where it’s going to run (i.e. not on a microcontroller or something). The compiler catches a lot of my bugs, the result is fast, and now that I’m comfortable with it, I’m pretty productive with it. It does have a bit of a learning curve, but it’s way better than when I started with it (around the 1.0 launch).
Forgot the JVM eating the entire machine’s RAM for breakfast
JVM is like a gas. It expands to fit it’s container, however large that is.
I’m sure that’s Fireship, without clicking the link.
Nah it’s not you should check it out
You made me expect a Rickroll
All I hear is I brightened someone’s day ;)
My experience with Java over the last 2 decades or so. Shame Android gave it extra life, thankfully Kotlin exists now.
Yup, I swore off Android dev almost entirely because of Java, and then Kotlin came out and Android programming was tolerable again. Not fun, tolerable, lipstick can only make a pig so appealing…
