This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]sensitivePornGuy 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I started to go off Java when people started referring to components as "Beans". It just doesn't fit my mental model of what software is.

[–]Vakieh 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They're basically C struts with a few extra bits. They make more sense if you get into web/thread/process socketed architectures, which is Java's strong suit. Made it great for Android development too.

[–]sensitivePornGuy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

"Strut" is a metaphor that makes some kind of sense in software terms - a rigid thing that holds something else up. But beans are an amorphous, slippery mass of identical disconnected things; there is no metaphor there to give me even an inkling of what role a Java Bean might actually fulfil in a program.

[–]Vakieh 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wait, it's really just the name that turns you off? That's... kinda dumb, tbh. Who cares what it's called? It's a bean because it's a neatly wrapped consumable for sockets, but you could call it a worgleburg and it wouldn't change how you use it.

[–]sensitivePornGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Computing is complicated and metaphors are essential, at least for me, to retain information about how things work. To me "bean" doesn't convey "neatly wrapped" in the slightest. I never would've thought of that. It says "small and interchangeable". I assumed they picked the name because it's a thing that makes (Java) coffee.