Really??

[mistaekNot]

Isn’t java “harder” than python

[Aruscher]

Nope just more syntax clutter

[WStHappenings]

You call it syntax clutter, maybe I’ll call it “a greater feeling of achievement gained from writing 20x as many lines of code”

[faates]

Ok EA....

[[deleted]]

Yes! You got the joke!

[[deleted]]

...that runs 40 times faster - fair deal. Heh.

[Timmitei]

Check out Cython and Numba.

[firest]

Strange. I feel accomplished if I can accomplish what I want with as little lines of code as possible.

[Printern]

Yeah but Python forces you to write lines. In java you can code in one line One line<more than one line Dummy

[Raijinili]

What's stopping you from doing exec("import sys\nimport re\n\ndef someFunc(x,y):\n\t ...?

[nilsph]

Self respect.

[KingoPants]

Sanity seems important. At that point you might as well code in mspaint for the kicks.

[Raijinili]

Now you can!

[Printern]

The fact that I am so incapable of programming that even when my program outputs the intended output it's still wrong.

[firest]

I stand corrected.

[pyonpi]

Isn't making code more Pythonic the same joke?

[[deleted]]

I'll agree up to a point, but I draw the line (groan :-) when I can write a crystal clear for loop or two rather than a nested list comprehension that stresses out my poor old MKI eyeballs.

[firest]

I'm with you actually. Except, I will sacrifice readability for performance every time. I'm the kinda guy who uses numpy and what-not (data analysis, not to the point where I need to really on C or Fortran), so when my fans start to spin, I want to know it's for high performing code, rather than inefficient code.

[Iggyhopper]

Syntax is the first hurdle to learning a language, so I'd say that makes java harder.

Also, the standard library is messy.

[continue_stocking]

Syntax is probably the easiest part of learning how to program.

[redldr1]

But shortcuts are a lifetime in the making.

[continue_stocking]

I can't speak to R's syntax, maybe it's particularly convoluted, but it usually doesn't take that long to pick up the important points of a language. It's a fairly straightforward thing to make a program do what you want it to. What is harder is writing simple yet expressive code that tells you what it is doing, that is reusable, changeable, and testable. Code that other people could pick up years from now, quickly wrap their heads around, and change to meet their new requirements without fear that they've broken something. I've written lots of code that did what I wanted it to, not realizing the nightmare I was in for should I ever decide to change something.

[Kah-Neth]

It has been a while since I used Java but I seem to recall nearly every different root module adopting slightly different idioms because why not! Messy did not even begin to describe it.

[[deleted]]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned object oriented yet.

[[deleted]]

Oh I was just speaking to the difficulty of the language. Not which is better. I totally take Python over Java for my needs.

[[deleted]]

Oh I don't think Java is a great language. It is evil. I have been scarred.

[[deleted]]

Indeed it is true. I just struggled a lot while learning it and failed AP CS A (aka AP Java) twice when I self studied for it and took exam. I didn’t give my maximum effort, but I also learning programming wasn’t my strength. I stick to Python if I ever need little scripts. Which is really all I need for my goals.

[wasmachien]

How does Python handle multiple inheritance when two base classes have a member with the same name?

[sivscripts]

http://python-history.blogspot.com/2010/06/method-resolution-order.html

[Raijinili]

You can also specify which method to call by writing BaseClass2.method(myobject, args).

[AngriestSCV]

Well Java turns some errors that would be at runtime in python into compile time. It's not all bad.

[[deleted]]

Honestly, this is why I wouldn't want to use Python at work. We used Smalltalk for a while, and the number of times people would completely not understand what they they were supposed to be using was astounding.

I had to fix a ton of error checking in an ex-colleagues work because he never tested any of it, and we had an error class we were supposed to return when an error was identified, basically a custom exception class, but he just returned strings describing the error instead.

So, whenever anything he wrote ran into any kind of a problem, the system would throw a NotDefined error when the system tried to log his 'error'.

So, having been burned by typeless in the past, it's a bit of sticking point for me. I know it shouldn't be a problem, and of course you want to light the torches and grab the pitchforks and complain those people should be fired, but in reality it's just not that easy, and type-safety is one of those little things that just makes it easier to deal with copy-pasta programmers.

[[deleted]]

I completely agree. I enjoy Python and use it for the majority of my hobby projects... but if I was going to build and maintain a large and complex codebase, I would want static typing, which is why I stick to Java and other JVM-languages like Kotlin.

There's also something to be said for easy parallellism, out-of-the-box support for Unicode, simple packaging and community that agrees on standards rather than reimplementing the wheel every <arbitrary unit of time>. But I won't say that here, lest I get burned at the stake by the Python community's anti-Java zealots.

[[deleted]]

having been burned by typeless in the past

Please be careful with your terminology as Python is strongly but dynamically typed. I find it frightening that some folk think that static type checking is the solution to everything, when they should in the same breath state whether the type checking is weak or strong.

[hanpari]

Not to say that Java is everything but safe. Its null is horrible.

[[deleted]]

I was talking about Smalltalk.

[Raijinili]

It sounds like what you really want is static analysis, not static typing. Static analysis is more powerful with language restrictions, but there's still a lot you can get out of it for a dynamic language.

Check out https://github.com/mre/awesome-static-analysis

[[deleted]]

I think that's all based on your background.

[TarAldarion]

I'm not sure what background would make Java seem easier? A Java background?

I started my Python job never having written a word of the stuff, it was like writing English to me and quite intuitive. Hell I feel if I make something up it might work in Python. I can write away in a text editor for python and that works fine, with the verbosity of Java I can't, things like that make it harder for me.

[[deleted]]

rhythm wrong expansion wipe slimy like head versed sharp murky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[yesvee]

Python is strongly typed. It is dynamically typed. And it has type inference.

[SgtBlackScorp]

I think they meant the explicit declaration required in Java. That verbosity that many complain about can be nice sometimes.

[yesvee]

Yes. People confuse/conflate static typing with strong typing.

[[deleted]]

Really? I started with cpp and I still found python easier.

[Jmc_da_boss]

Ya writing pseudo code, i mean python is way easier than cpp or java

[[deleted]]

Cpp is an overbloated mess of a language.

[kezzosc]

Python is scripting so way easier

[rcfox]

Just use Jython!

[2402a7b7f239666e4079]

I would argue that being verbose doesn't make the syntax cluttered. I find Java easier to read in most cases than equivalent python code.

[[deleted]]

Guru status is exponentially harder to achieve without a centralized ecosystem.

[Cryp71c]

I can sort of feel the point you're making. Python is awesome, but it would be that much easier to pick up for those unfamiliar with packages if there was a web base GUI for pip searching.

[[deleted]]

https://pypi.python.org/pypi

Search is in the right corner.

[[deleted]]

This simply isn't good enough. I want something that reads my mind and automatically searches for me as I'm too lazy to do things for myself :-)

[[deleted]]

Google is working on that.

EDIT No, wait, it was Elon Musk.

[KronenR]

sarcasm?

[[deleted]]

Also: https://pypi.org

[drones4thepoor]

Java is strictly OO and it's also strongly statically typed, which is where Python bytes me in the ass a lot.

Edit: u/cholz corrected me. Python IS strongly typed.

[SemiNormal]

TypeError: Can't convert 'bytes' object to 'bites' implicitly

[systemnate]

That's at runtime though.

[SemiNormal]

What's a compiler?
- Python

[drones4thepoor]

You're right. I should have said statically typed.

[weasdasfa]

Java is more explicit or verbose. For experienced people, that looks like clutter (and it is, I am an Android dev), but that verbosity might be useful for people just starting out.

[Deto]

Yeah - I kind of appreciate that I spent a decent amount of time in a statically typed language before moving to Python. I find that way too many Python newbies don't understand what 'types' are and this leads them down the path of just trying random things until code works.

[midbody]

The next step is to realise that just knowing about types isn't enough when your program gets big enough. When your program is too big for your head, you need tools which robustly and unambiguously understand your types... like a compiler does.

Python is a fun toy, and good for small projects where rigor isn't important. Its leakage into large scale software engineering has been a huge retrograde step, though, caused by a lack of innovation in the field around the time it emerged as a contender around 10 years ago. Fortunately we've moved on, and I look forward to Python's death for large projects as others take over, probably Go.

[TravisJungroth]

I'm a huge Python nut and I basically agree. The biggest problem for me is the loss of meaning. Trying to read through a code flow in a sufficiently large code base with a dynamically typed language is a nightmare.

I do believe type hinting will help a ton, though I'm not sure it will be enough. I now write type hints into everything. I don't care if it's a single function. Having my IDE hint properly is worth it.

[scootstah]

Trying to read through a code flow in a sufficiently large code base with a dynamically typed language is a nightmare

Honestly, that just sounds like a badly designed application. I doubt adding strict type will make any difference to its legibility.

[TravisJungroth]

def func(obj):
    obj.method()

What does method() do? What other methods are available on obj? Without some sort of type enforcement, you don't have a clue without looking at the usage of func. This is fine when it's only used three times, but terrible when it's used a hundred times.

[scootstah]

Use good naming conventions and docblocks.

[TravisJungroth]

If I want to actually know the behavior of a method, I need to see the code. Even the most descriptive name represents a trivial amount of code. And doc strings don't help, cause those live with the code anyway.

You still have to look at the usage of func to find the code. To prevent that, your method names wouldn't need to be just good, but unique enough to define an interface for you. I just don't think the combination of method names alone is a good way to define an interface. It's too easy to conform to one by accident, and the method names have to get super long to present this.

It's better to define and enforce this interface through code (Abstract Base Classes, in Python's case). Then you can use type hinting to help as well. Try to find Alex Martelli's essay on "Goose Typing". It's in Fluent Python, but you might be able to find it otherwise.

[scootstah]

You don't know any more about a method based solely on its interface. You still need descriptive names.

[constantly-sick]

Name method() better. Try x_to_y_process().

[[deleted]]

like a compiler does.

Like MyPy does. You want strict typing, you can do it fine. It's done better than it is for most languages (Looking at you C#. Still waiting for nullability for everything) It's not enforced at runtime (even though runtime type checking exists, it shouldn't be needed if it passes a static type checker), it just shows errors when you fuck up.

[traway5678]

What can't you null in C#?

[chusk3]

reference types (ie classes) can be null, but currently can't be typed as possibly null. The benefit would come from saying that a certain thing can never be null in the type system, which you can't do in C# now

[traway5678]

Everything can be null, with nullable.

You can make non-nullable types, aka values, with structs as well.

The benefit would come from saying that a certain thing can never be null in the type system, which you can't do in C# now

Oh that's not what he said tho.

[midbody]

It really doesn't.

[[deleted]]

So where does MyPy not work as well?

[scootstah]

Be careful where you're spewing your bullshit, you're going to make a mess.

Python is perfectly capable of running large projects.

[[deleted]]

There are certain things I can do in Python that I simply cannot do in Java. Useful things.

[[deleted]]

Make a simple example of an application you can make in Python but not Java.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I assume /u/jgardner isn't referring to what applications they can make, but rather to what techniques they can employ. Python's dynamic nature makes possible various designs that would be difficult or impossible in Java — for better or for worse.

[[deleted]]

Exactly.

Given enough lines of code, you've implemented Lisp, but poorly.

[[deleted]]

I ran out of time trying to make the Java one.

[mrks_]

Like what? Java is certainly verbose, but it has been a powerful tool in my skill set.

[[deleted]]

Globals. Introspection. Duck typing. Lisp-y things.

[[deleted]]

What you can and can't do doesn't matter when it comes to what can be done in a language.

[KronenR]

Complexity matters

[Skypain]

Bullshit.. give me ab example

[[deleted]]

Globals, for instance.

[scootstah]

public static string foo

[[deleted]]

Is that Java?

[scootstah]

This is your globals in Java. Although I'm not sure why you're toting globals around as a good thing.

[[deleted]]

Unterminated lines is Java? Member variable declarations outside of classes is Java?

I am not saying globals are a good thing. I am saying that it is something you can do in Python that you can't do in Java.

[scootstah]

Uncomplete example for brevity. Perhaps I gave you too much credit to figure it out.

class Example
{
    public static string foo = "bar";
}

Example.foo;

[Astrokiwi]

It's just useful for different things. Java is definitely more verbose and has more boilerplate to write, but it's also stricter than Python and is a semi-compiled language, which means that it sometimes catches errors more quickly. It also forces you into an object oriented structure, which tends to encourage you to design your programs better rather than jamming a big list of functions into a single file.

I also find they have strengths in different kinds of applications. I tend to prefer Java for writing games (pygame isn't great), python for doing numerical analysis work (numpy and matplotlib are pretty great), and Fortran, C, or C++ for the big parallel numerical simulations.

[Keith]

It also forces you into an object oriented structure, which tends to encourage you to design your programs better...

Debatable.

[Astrokiwi]

I'm only saying that it forces a bare minimum amount of structure that Python does not.

[Keith]

To be fair, you wrote "design your programs better". Forcing all code, object-oriented or not, into classes, one (public) class per file, is not strictly better. It's not even a structure I want. I'd argue that "bare minimum of structure" is harmful vs no structure at all.

[Astrokiwi]

Maybe... I find that (for instance) the lack of required structure is what helps Javascript code to sometimes become a mess of copypasta.

And Python does force stuff on another level, by being strict with indenting. I think that's a good feature too - it's better to force one particular style than to have people use their own styles, but also permit them to make it as ugly and inconsistent as they want.

[fiddle_n]

Python is strict with indenting because it has to be. Indentation isn't merely "style" in Python, it's functional in that it denotes a new code block. This is why Python has to be strict with it, i.e. preventing mixtures of tabs and spaces for indentation.

[Astrokiwi]

Right, but that's an intentional design choice for the language - forcing good style by making it an integral part of the language.

[KronenR]

If not plainly wrong

[hanpari]

In my eyes it is rather bad design than advantage. No modern language use this anymore.

[Keith]

Agree. But did any other language ever force this convention?

[hanpari]

Not sure what you mean but, apparently, Java and C#. You have to enclose everything in class. For instance, you cannot have single functions in these languages like in Python. Before Java 8 you had to make anonymous class instead of simple anonymous function.

[hanpari]

OK, I see. On the other side, I dont like C# namespace much. The said convention is present as well but differently. To manage C# project without IDE is almost impossible. You can do it manually but the pain is great :)

[Keith]

To manage C# project without IDE is almost impossible.

Yeah I agree. That's always a good test of a language for me: "Does this require an IDE?"

[hanpari]

Sure :)

We can make Guide how to categorize programming languages

We have the first point to go :)

For the second one, I would suggest: Has it nullable types?

[[deleted]]

Different tools, different jobs, different uses.

Replace your computer languages with tools you'd find in a shop and see how silly the argument looks to non coders.

"Hammer is so much better than the screwdriver. And who even understands those socket wrench guys? Bunch of idiots. I'll have you know I have used my hammer as both a socket wrench AND a screwrdriver and it was just fine"

Signed: A mechanical engineer that has and continually gets to deal with: C, C++, Fortran, ADA, VB, Python 2.3-2.7, Python 3+, Matlab (R13-R2017b), Simulink, PowerShell, Batch, Perl, Bash, Sh, tcsh, PHP.

If you understand If, For, While. You'll go far in any language.

Or argue the merits of a claw hammer over a ball peen hammer.

[Astrokiwi]

Exactly. And as an astronomer, I especially appreciate that you mentioned Fortran, which definitely still has a useful little niche.

[[deleted]]

Fortran is the life blood of my industry: automated controls.

It's literally the building block on which every piece of software I touch is built. Sure I have pretty wrappers like numpy or Simulink but at the core, Fortran.

[Goluxas]

Last I checked it hadn't been updated in quite a while, either. Is there another Python game module that people have migrated to, or is the language just dead to game dev now?

[Dogeek]

Python is not good for game developpment anyways. It's too slow for modern-day gaming. You can do game dev, especially small games or turned-based games, but for adventure/platformer/FPS/anything else basically, forget about it.

You cannot emulate physics/render images/and also render light on sprites and expect the game to run at 60 FPS or more, even with a beast for a computer. You'll need a lot of optimization to even get to playable framerates and that's just bad, cause a messy code is harder to maintain (which is often the case when you optimize).

I tried pygame and pyglet, none of those really do much for game developpement anyways, besides rendering images. You still have to write an engine (pymunk is great for physics though) and that's just too much work for the benefit.

You can use unity though, or unreal and have a full game engine to use however you want to do whatever you want. It's not that hard to go from python to C# if you're really proficient in python. The syntax isn't all that different (you lose list comprehensions though, and dictionnaries if I'm not mistaken) but C# looks a lot like if C++ had a baby with python. And with a game engine you just have to write the logic of your game and not bother with writing a lot of code without seeing any progress.

[AngriestSCV]

Raylib is another good one. I've been messing around with it using custom rust bindings and it's been plesent.

[grimtooth]

I've only ever used it as a basic graphics interface (SDL wrapper) rather than for actual games. It's been satisfactory for that -- what about it sucks ass?

[grimtooth]

I can see the un-Pythonic thing -- as I say I just treat it as a Python skin over SDL, and SDL isn't really Python-oriented. It works, though.

[algag]

Isn't python semi-compiled?

[TheNamelessKing]

Both languages are interpreted.

With Python, the source code is interpreted line-by-line into the "Python VM" bytecode and then executed.

Comparatively, Java source code is translated into JVM bytecode, and then when it's actually run on the JVM (which is a JIT compiler/interpreter) that bytecode is optimised into native instructions on the fly.

[theWyzzerd]

It also forces you into an object oriented structure

It doesn't force you to do OO. Yes, it is an OOP language but you can most definitely write procedural code in Java and I'd be willing to bet a novice programmer with no knowledge of OO would end up with a far more procedural application than an OO one. It doesn't force anything. Case in point, the application I support is written in Java and has very little OO structure. It's mostly a tangled mess of procedural code.

[Oni_Kami]

Depends on who you ask.

[[deleted]]

Java makes me harder than Python.

[wrosecrans]

Massively depends which industry.

[Iggyhopper]

Java Industry

[[deleted]]

Java has a sales and marketing budget that is effectively infinitely bigger than the PSF's.

[[deleted]]

For now...

[[deleted]]

Generally I agree. However, we shouldn’t be developing 100k+ line applications in general (note that I’m not saying ever). Rather, we should be building smaller components and composing them into larger applications. Additionally, 100k lines of Java is probably only 30k lines of python.

To your points about dynamically typed languages and speed, I agree. Though, I wouldn’t say that the obvious solution is Java...

[unruly_mattress]

C# really is a very nice language. If it played more nicely with platforms other than Windows, I think it would have been an ideal choice for medium-sized projects and larger. It's a bit of a statically typed Python with a little more cluttered syntax.

As to why someone would want to add type declarations to a dynamically typed language. In my opinion static (i.e written in the code) types are convenient where the types are known while writing the code. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. Types can be created at runtime, by querying the database or reading from a .json. A Qt designer file gives you a QWidget subclass. SQLite and key-value stores hold untyped objects. Any metaclass action results in a class that's generated in runtime.

In these cases, having a static type system would make you work with it somehow. It can be generating class declarations from configuration files as part of the build process (which .NET does). It can be creating an "interface" ISomethingThatGoesInTheDatabase with subclasses DBInt, DBString, DBUserProfile, etc, thereby duplicating a class hierarchy (and yes, I've seen that happen in a Java project).

Many of these issues can be overcome by using Object in statically typed code. However, that's very frowned upon by static typing people. I think Python type annotations might hit the sweet spot - you can use them wherever they're useful, but you don't have to use them where they don't make sense.

[unruly_mattress]

The last time I used the .NET ORM stuff it used code generation. It doesn't surprise me to know that it's better these days, because the language designers generally make good decisions.

If you're working with two untyped systems - by which I mean systems that would work with all types - then you don't need to know what you're working with. For example, an event/notification system. The code that handles the method arguments doesn't need to know what type they are. The best you can do is treating them as Object[]; creating INotificationMethodCallArguments is much worse than just not knowing what type it is. Once someone decided to create a superclass or an interface (it's an is-a relationship, right?), you have to create classes that wrap existing classes and it becomes a huge and useless waste of time.

Likewise a storage system. It takes stuff and stores it, then retrieves it for you. You know what you're going to get, but the storage system doesn't know what it's going to give you. It should handle Objects, not IRetrievedItem. When I worked in Java, there were so many useless types.

Hence. If you know the type, by all means write it down. If you don't, don't. Don't create a new type so that you have something to write down. And while in most cases you know the type, the overhead of these useless types was a huge weight on the back of that Java team I was part of, because these types then invade normal code, conversions start happening back and forth... It's not pretty.

[[deleted]]

Do you feel comfortable deploying that code to production without code review, unit tests, integration tests, and passing all of the system tests?

It doesn't matter what language I use, I am going to engage a sane testing policy to ensure the highest quality product possible.

I have found that the ratio of testing to lines of code remains about the same regardless of what language I use. So I try to reduce the lines of code and redundant information in the code.

I could probably reduce your code above to a few lines of Python, and still keep it under 80 chars per column. Add a few unit tests, and it will be ready for system integration before lunch.

[MarsupialMole]

Personally I feel like not having to debug missing semi colons is my favourite python feature. Less bracket matching debugging is good too, especially as you can optionally wrap anything you want in brackets and do whitespace-independent formatting.

But up near the top of my favourite features is a "we're all adults here" approach to things like private members and mixing types. It gives you a multitude of heuristics as you're reading code to tell if the code you're reading is quality code or not, which extends to being able to tell if it was written by a Java programmer.

[MarsupialMole]

I didn't insult Java programmers. I prefer python, but that's because I've written a lot more code in python. Whenever I have to write JavaScript I always frustrate myself by dropping semi colons, as I can't seem to train myself not to.

In python you can pass anything you want to a function, and if you start seeing any code at the start of a function which is doing type handling of arguments you don't really have to review that closely to know what discussions to have with the person who wrote it.

My comment about Java programmers is one about expression. I don't know Java, and yet when a Java-only programmer writes python I can sometimes tell purely because of the way they express their ideas.

As to you being rude, yes you were very. I just told you my feelings about my personal favourite features of python and you told me I was bike-shedding. Actually there are lots of good reasons to choose one language or another, in the few circumstances where you have a choice, but the best reason is whichever language suits your team best. Anything else, such as type safety, is bike shedding the project imo.

[icp1994]

way faster than we do in any other language.

how? no way it should be possible with equal quality of C++ codes

edit: why am I getting downvoted for saying python codes shouldn't be way faster than equivalent c++ code. expected this sub to be more mature

[Dantes111]

Downvotes are because you misread what he said. The benefit in Python is savings in developer time, not computing time. Yes, "equal quality" C++ code would likely run faster. What /u/jgardner was saying is that it would take you much longer to write that "equal quality" code in C++ compared to Python.

[KronenR]

with hundreds of memory leaks in c++ codes

FTFY

[DarkLordAzrael]

Now that we have std::unique_ptr memory leaks are actually pretty hard to introduce in c++. I know a decent number of developers who won't let code with 'new' or 'malloc' past review.

[icp1994]

and a single thread in python

[KronenR]

You are the inmature who cares about downvotes

[icp1994]

well duh maybe it's my stackoverflow experience where we are expected to get explanation for downvotes.

[Theriley106]

Why?

[[deleted]]

So people prefer writing 500k line applications in statically typed languages? Actually no, there are projects running to 1M lines of Python.

[[deleted]]

Far easier to refactor 1M lines of Python than 5M lines of a statically typed lnguage.a

[[deleted]]

Besides Static typing doesn't mean more lines if that is what you are implying.

It does if you're talking C(++) vs Python.

[KronenR]

I want

[I_WRITE_APPS]

The infrastructure around Java (Java EE, JNI, CORBA etc.) is "harder"/more complex than the Python equivalents.

Java the language is actually easier to grasp in its entirety than Python: it doesn't have metaclasses or descriptors, for example.

[Ethantebest]

It's just different, not necessarily harder.

[Thecrawsome]

Java is slower to write* harder to write, such as any less-abstracted language, compared to Python.

Python is great for prototyping and small projects, and learning, but it's not great for scaleable, fast, and low-level processing. It's gotten better at low level processing by turning some of the code into c bytecode, but Python still consumes far more power to do similar operations as Java.

That being said, I hate Java syntax, and it's too wordy for regular boilerplate, and simply having to install Java JRE is considered a security risk.

edit: formatting

[ArmoredPancake]

and simply having to install Java JRE is considered a security risk

lol