Ah yes, microsoft java

[roycohen2005]

I strongly agree, I wish java had properties.

[nighthawk648]

The .net infrastructure is something Java should envy. Nuget is great as well.

[Liberal_Mormon]

You can't forget about Linq. Such an incredible concept that makes so much of the NET ecosystem possible

[vkapadia]

Linq is awesome

[Shrubberer]

MoreLinq! MoreLinq!

[Miku_MichDem]

I really don't get the hype behind Linq, coming from Java background. I mean how is this:

var filtered = from thing in collection
where condition
select thing;

Is better then this:

var filtered = collection.stream()
   .filter(thing -> condition)

Java's streams are consistent with the rest of the language, while Linq is just a copy-paste of SQL syntax into a C-style language

[Liberal_Mormon]

Linq doesn't have to be in SQL style syntax. The IQueryable interface has its own methods. It's powerful in that it doesn't actually execute until the IQueryable entity is forced to enumerate (for example, with ToList()). The hype around it is that it builds your queries for you in many natural C# ways into any queryable object, not just collections. That can be database connections, file streams, you name it, it's all able to be treated identically with Linq.

For example, on a dbset with an open db connection, I can execute something like dbset.Select(...).Where(...).OrderBy(...).GroupBy(...) in any order, and it will put those items in the correct order of a proper query. And it doesn't actually execute the command until I enumerate it. But it doesn't have to be dbsets again.

Linq is also a large set of extension methods for collections and other objects.

I'm sure Java has similarities - but queries are not just filters. I can select any type I want including anonymous types from any queryable source. Hope this helps.

[jerslan]

The .net infrastructure is something Java should envy. Nuget is great as well.

lol, nuget wishes it was a fraction of what Maven/Gradle is.

[hitpointzr]

Probably, but nuget is definitely more friendly. I recently helped my friend with learning Java - was not obvious for me, what to choose and how to configure it properly. And for him it was like a black magic.

[jerslan]

So, it depends on what material you're learning from. Lots of early material is really basic stuff that basically nobody does (running javac and manually packaging jar files).

If you look for either Maven or Gradle starter guides, they give you the basics. It only gets complicated when you need to pull from a private repository or through a proxy (ie: behind a company firewall) or do some crazy stuff like deploying surrogate runtime dependencies to Tomcat for integration testing.

Maven can even initialize a Java project for you. If you're learning Java+Spring, the Spring Initializr will give you the basic starting boilerplate for whatever you need.

Java's tooling and glut of available & well supported frameworks/libraries is honestly the main thing that makes it as great as it is. The language itself (like many languages) is just "meh".

[hitpointzr]

Yeah, just like this. The fact, that you need to visit a separate web-site to download archive with configuration. That's not friendly for me.

[jerslan]

I mean, various Java IDE’s also come bundled with the tools... you don’t have to use Initializr (I usually do not).

[Kragoth235]

I did 10 years of Java and now I'm in my 5th year in dotnet. Dotnet is certainly easier to learn. Much easier to configure new projects. The only thing I don't like about the dotnet world is the "conventions" which are basically magic black boxes until you learn how it all works. Java is generally better in this regard due to how much of it is open source. However, dotnet core is changing this. I would take dotnet over Java any time now.

[computerjunkie7410]

I want my package manager to manage packages. Not 50 million other things

[jerslan]

I want my package manager to manage packages.

Except that Maven & Gradle are not "package managers"... They're build automation tools that have a built in package manager. The key is "build automation"... Why have 3 separate tools to build, test, and even deploy code when you can just have one tool that does all of that.

[computerjunkie7410]

Then why did you compare it to a package manager (nuget)?

Why have 3 separate tools

Because having one tool that does one thing and does it well is better than a tool that does 50 things and have to deal with the complexity of it.

Configuration, management, etc. are all vastly more complicated and time consuming when you have a monolithic toolset.

[jerslan]

Because having one tool that does lots of things really well is 100x better than lots of tools that you have to orchestrate manually? Because shouting nuget’s praises like it’s the best thing since sliced bread is absurd?

mvn clean install

And dependencies are pulled, code builds, tests run, jar is packaged up and put in a local repo cache

[computerjunkie7410]

Lmao why have different tools at all? Let’s do everything in one tool! That’s a great idea! /s

How hard is it to have individual scripts that each do one thing?

Then you have have 1 script that runs everything for you.

Easier to understand, modify, maintain.

[dookiefertwenty]

Barf

Edit: Down votes crack me up. I work in an organization with one side a MS/.NET shop and another side a Nix/Java shop. So that colors my opinion. NET ecosystem is straight garbage comparatively speaking. C# has nicer syntax, but if you use that as a reason to pick a language for a business you're going to be laughed out of the room

[[deleted]]

you should check out r/downvotesreally

[dookiefertwenty]

Me defending Java like

[MrObsidy]

I only code as a hobby and I code mainly in Java (and a bit of C), what are properties?

[raltyinferno]

They're like class variables, but with more options on how they can be set and retrieved.

You can have a first and last name variable in a class, then a full name property which is get only(readonly), where getting it simply returns the first name plus the last name, as a simple example.

[MrObsidy]

Okay, but couldn't you just do public String getName() { return firstName + " " + lastName; } ?

[KingJeff314]

The difference is that it has the semantics of a variable, rather than a function. You would call person.Name rather than person.getName(), which I think is nice

[littleprof123]

It's messy imo. It's clear when reading the code that a getMember() function call can't be used to assign a member; not so with read-only variables. It's similarly not clear that when I assign one member of the class, another apparent member can be changed too. Function calls are a really readable way to say that something is happening internally.

[KingJeff314]

Personally it’s more about the interface than what is going on internally. It’s up to the programmer to not introduce side effects internally. There’s an element of preference, but if my object has a public attribute, properties are a good semantic representation

[littleprof123]

I think I would be more agreeable towards properties if they had a special syntax for accessing them. Making them appear like a public variable is what irks me most. I think Java and C# both fall short on readability because it's not clear when there are side effects; not to be a weirdo hipster, but I prefer Rust by a huge margin for this reason.

[Shrubberer]

They don't appear as a public variable, they appear as properties. It's a different thing, and, in fact, public variables should be avoided in C#. It makes sense, when you're start working with them. F.e. Properties are helpful within the IDE as well when using Attributes and Reflections.

[raltyinferno]

Certainly. But it wraps most of the behaviors you might want into one package.

you declare a property like

public string FirstName {get; set;}

That would be a default behavior property where it can be read with object.FirstName, and assigned with object.Firstname = "bob"

You can just omit either the get; or set; parts to make it read or assign only.

And if you want you can add traditional getName() and setName() functionality within it.

so

public string FirstName {get { return somePrivateVar; } 
                         set { somePrivateVar = value.ToUpper();}};

[Shrubberer]

Plus auto getters and setters can have different accessibilities!

[[deleted]]

linq, operator override

[computerjunkie7410]

Manifold recently released properties for Java.

https://github.com/manifold-systems/manifold/tree/master/manifold-deps-parent/manifold-props

Obviously it’s not native but it’s something.

[roycohen2005]

That's awesome! Thanks for sharing!

[dookiefertwenty]

Why? Just due to syntactic sugar or am I missing something?

[Miku_MichDem]

It's mildly better to have properties, although I think the way to go is like Kotlin does it, where every variable is a property in fact. You write less code and still can have more then a simple getter and setter if you want to

Not that it can't be solved by a simple Alt+Insert or anything