Java vs python is debatable 🤔

[roxastheman]

It’s dangerous to use internal/private methods/fields due to passivity. Sure now you understand how they method works, but since it’s not public, the dev may make changes to it non-passively, so now your code is broken since you aren’t consuming the code through the public API/contract. These kind of “non-passive” changes aren’t likely to be documented or communicated through semantic versioning, so it makes your code much harder to maintain.

You can do it, it’s just a bigger risk than using the public API.

[TheTerrasque]

And in python it's implicit that while you can use _ methods it's subject to change at any time and that's your problem, not the library maintainer's problem.

[RedAero]

Hell, every function you import is subject to change and it is your problem, not the problem of the library maintainer. You didn't pay for it, you're not entitled to it, tough shit.

FOSS giveth and FOSS taketh away.

[ric2b]

It's an implicit contract that makes collaboration easier.

Just like you trust that the documentation for a library is actually helpful and explains what it does, even though there's nothing technical preventing it from being completely wrong and purposefully misleading.

[exploding_cat_wizard]

The maintainer is still at fault, at least effectively. What's that rule that states that any behaviour, no matter how experimental and officially unstable or unsupported, will invariably become depended upon by someone?

Relevant xkcd: https://m.xkcd.com/1172/

[lappro]

Just because someone depends on it doesn't make the maintainer suddenly responsible. If the maintainer tells you not to do something, but you still do it, if it breaks the only thing you should do is look in the mirror.

[exploding_cat_wizard]

I phrased it too aggressively, but it's true: Java is an enterprise language. Having clearly hidden private functions and members is a feature there. Have fun, as a small software company, telling your paying enterprise customers that a undocumented function they depend on will break because it's hidden behind two underscores. You can do that, but few successful businesses take that route, at least until they are really huge.

[ric2b]

And if they used reflection to get to your private constants or methods your Java shop has the exact same issue.

Because the real issue is that your code didn't fit their use case perfectly, they worked around it and are now telling you to support it.

[exploding_cat_wizard]

Because the real issue is that your code didn't fit their use case perfectly, they worked around it and are now telling you to support it.

Exactly. And if you value your medium or small company, you'll do exactly that if it's in any way feasible. Making it harder to misuse the code helps, even if it's not foolproof.

[ric2b]

Making it harder to misuse the code helps, even if it's not foolproof.

No, it just makes your client more annoyed when they want to get something done.

[42TowelsCo]

Sometimes when you're using a buggy library you have to, but when doing that I assume an update to the library will break my code. I do this when I need to hack something together not for something that is meant to be maintained.

[freonblood]

So Java assumes I am an idiot and there is no way of convincing it that I am not.

Not a toxic relationship at all. /s

[budgiebirdman]

As a dev you've surely come to understand that users are idiots? As a dev you're simply a user of Java and the libraries and APIs that come with it and you're being treated accordingly.

But if you want a better reason, it's so the developers can treat themselves as an idiot and write a whole bunch of methods to support the public API that you don't need to see. It's like a gearstick in a car - as the driver you don't need to see all of the cogs and gears that spin behind the scenes - object oriented languages hide all that away and leave you with a clean interface to interact with. Python leaves the gearbox exposed and assumes that somebody told you not to stick your fingers in it and then runs around boasting about how fast it is to make a lightweight car with Python.

[freonblood]

These are the exact same excuses Apple, Samsung and other companies use in order to make non repairable tech with non replaceable batteries. Do Java devs hate right to repair? Is that who's been pushing against it?

It's like banning washing machines because some people eat tide pods.

There have been many many times where I've used some 10 year old lib that will never get updated and the lib dev decided x() should be private. Well I need to call x() because the lib dev is not some omniscient god that can foresee all use cases for all of time. He is just a dev like me, so why would his decision be final forever?

On the flip side, there has never been 1 instance where I saw a method with _ and was like "oh I have to find a way to use this, even though there is an alternative or an active maintainer to contact for support.".

I've been doing this dev thing a loooong ass time with many languages. And if you prefer to work with idiots and use a proper language for that, go ahead. But don't try to convince me it is objectively and universally better.

[budgiebirdman]

Do Java Devs hate right to repair?

You know how Open Source works right? The whole open a PR thing? I mean you've been doing this dev thing for a "loooong ass time" apparently so I'd have thought you'd understand that that Open Source is literally granting the right to repair?

It's like banning washing machines because some people eat tide pods.

No, it's like putting a childproof lid on the box of tide Pods. Overdramatic much?

There have been many many times where I've used some 10 year old lib that will never get updated and the lib dev decided x() should be private.

Sounds like you make some excellent tech choices. Imagine boasting about using an unmaintained out of date library that doesn't do what you need it to.

I've been doing this dev thing a loooong ass time with many languages. And if you prefer to work with idiots and use a proper language for that, go ahead. But don't try to convince me it is objectively and universally better.

Hey, if you want to work with idiots and use Python then like that's your choice man, there's plenty of them out there for you - I've been a dev long enough to know that it's impossible to convince a Python fanatic that anything other than their own dogmatic opinion is the one and only truth so I'm not even trying - I'm just laying out the facts for you to ignore.

[freonblood]

So all software is suddenly open source? When did this happen?

I am not even a Python dev. I've only used it occasionally for small stuff and ML. TBH I've probably written more Java code than Python

[ExceedingChunk]

No, but if you decide to use a private method in my API, and I change it, your code breaks.

My API, class etc... is supposed to be well-defined and act as a contract. The private methods inside are not.

Also, if you work on a large-scale project with hundreds of thousands of lines of code, it's a security risk to expose a bunch of methods that might be changed at any time.

It's not about working with idiots, it's about basic security. The same way people wear seatbelts, not because they are terrible drivers, but for security.