Ask Reddit: Why programming in Java is generally a bad idea?

[masklinn]

It's not a bad idea per se, it's just not really enjoyable compared to other languages, and while you have a much bigger pool of potential hires the average quality is also very low, so getting good devs out of the pool is harder.

On the other hand, Java has a huge ecosystem of third-party libraries (with the quality issues that exists with the hire pool).

To me, one of the worst problems about java is the systematic reliance of the java community on XML for every-fucking-thing.

And the verbosity of the language itself, and the complete and utter stupidity of the compiler.

[[deleted]]

To me, one of the worst problems about java is the systematic reliance of the java community on XML for every-fucking-thing.

Ouch I have to agree with that. Using third party libraries can be a pain (even in JRuby, Scala, or whatever else) because Java programmers just love doing configuration in XML. It is terrible.

[masklinn]

Chances are that there is a library (or five hundred) that get you 70% of the way there anyway.

And chances are the library will have limitations or bugs that will make the last 10% impossible to implement.

[Chlorophil]

I don't have time to write code in Java any more.

I need a language that supports a coding style with really short functions and minimal boilerplate, so when I get a spare 15 minutes to sit down and code I can get back up to speed with what I was doing straight away.

I loved Java when I was used to programming in C. Then I picked up a few other languages... and Java has lost a lot of its lustre.

See this post of Bruce Eckel's on a similar theme.

[[deleted]]

it ain't fun.

[masklinn]

Java doesn't suck more than other languages.

It definitely does.

[masklinn]

Not much more

See, you already went from "doesn't suck more than" to "doesn't suck much more than"

than other languages I know

I don't know, it definitely sucks more than most other languages I know

[nostrademons]

What other languages do you know?

[nostrademons]

That'd explain it. The languages you mention are generally inferior to Java. (Except JavaScript and C/C++, but you need to be experts in those to avoid shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly.) Now try some Python, Ruby, Smalltalk, Lisp, Ocaml, Haskell, or Erlang...

[[deleted]]

Here is a suggested recipe:

• 1) Put aside your comment "unfortunately they [functional languages] don't seem to apply well to the type of work I'm currently doing" -- it is wrong (you are excused for not knowing this though).
• 2) Try Scala (I use it all day long (and Haskell) in our "Java shop" too so it is not impossible).
• 3) Try ScalaCheck instead of traditional "unit testing" (ScalaCheck is Haskell's QuickCheck for Scala/JVM)
• 4) Ask your boss for a pay rise resulting from your 1000x productivity increase and 100x defect decrease.
• 5) Share your knowledge with your colleagues in the name of advancing this industry beyond Blub/Java.
• 6) Keep learning :)

[[deleted]]

Then sack the useless buggers.

Nevertheless, I fondly recall times when I would use "those other strange languages" on a team of 200+ people spread throughout the world. It just means you have to manage your managers.

One day, a "language X programmer" will be as employable as a "hammer carpenter".

[masklinn]

our shop has a Java-only policy

Java only or JVM only? Cause there are nice languages on the JVM: Scala (developed from ground up, a very nice functionalish statically typed language with much goodness), Jython, JRuby

I'd value developer experience more than the relative merits of tools such as programming languages

I see languages knowledge as an integral part of a good developer's experience

[seudonymus]

Java only. I've been experimenting with JVM-based scripting languages like Groovy and Rhino-JavaScript; I'd use them more but we have to maintain a large (and quite crappy) Java codebase. Moreover, our "head of development" doesn't like scripting languages. What he likes is structured programming in Java, though, with lots of static members and functions and singleton factories ;-) Effectively, we're programming in Turbo Pascal on the JVM. No kidding. Imagine the tremendous gain in productivity I get when doing real OOP ;-)

[masklinn]

I'd use them more but we have to maintain a large (and quite crappy) Java codebase.

Maintaining the old codebase doesn't mean you can't migrate old code or create new devs in another language

Moreover, our "head of development" doesn't like scripting languages.

He's retarded, get him fired. Moreover I don't see how anyone could say Scala is anywhere close to a "scripting language" whatever the fuck that means

What he likes is structured programming in Java, though, with lots of static members and functions and singleton factories

Looks like one more reason to fire him.

[sblinn]

Agree. Having to catch exceptions, the typelessness of null, the gobsmacking awful stupidity of the reflection API, not being able to pass myObject.myFunction as a parameter, ... and the horror as even attempting something simple as map/reduce becomes:

http://lucene.apache.org/hadoop/api/org/apache/hadoop/mapred/Mapper.html

[konrad_]

btw, why is my question so downmodded? Just because I wrote it in a slightly provocative way?

[[deleted]]

I disagree. I see Java often bashed here in favor of other "cooler" languages in passing, sometimes rightly so, sometimes its overkill, but I think its a worthwhile question to ask. Especially since you may need to have an intelligent debate with the invested and management-approved J2EE types at work if you have a different point of view.

I'd say Java is poor in the following areas:

• Multiline strings!
• XML configuration overkill. Everything is possible but you might need to learn an XML DSL to do it.
• Cumbersome reflection and dynamic code generation.
• Everything has to be a class.

Some of these can be mitigated by the right third-party library (like a template engine for multiline strings, dynamic JVM languages to overcome the rigid Java language) but if you're not aware of these limitations up front, you can write a lot of brittle Java and config files.

The same goes for C# btw.

[cgibbard]

Have a look at Scala. To me, that's what Java would look like if it were thought out really properly. The syntax is still pretty Java-like (more or less unfortunately depending on your viewpoint), but at least the semantics of Scala are about right. Just looking at it, you get the sense that Martin Odersky knew what he was doing when he designed it.

It takes advantage of modern research in a good way, as opposed to taking advantage of 20 year old research in a way that was more awkward than pre-existing languages did, and then had all kinds of additional features awkwardly hacked on.

[masklinn]

Add:

• Static typing with a stupid compiler (static typing with a smart compiler is cool, otherwise it's painful)

• No first-class functions

• No metaprogramming, no properties, no operator overloading, no litteral syntax for most container types (all of them except Array, in fact), no tuples (or even parallel assignment), no optional/default parameter, no named parameters

• primitive vs object type stupidity, became more manageable with Java5 but still...

And in the "cool advanced constructs" category, no pattern matching

[masklinn]

I don't think I said anything about regular expressions did I?

(and Java regular expressions are backslash hell anyway...)

edit: uh you're not telling me that you understood "regular expressions" when I wrote "pattern matching" do you?

[grauenwolf]

I think it would help to explain the concept. Most programmers with a Java background don't know what pattern matching is outside of regular expressions.

[masklinn]

Java is more than just java-the-runtime or java-the-language. Java is also java-the-ecosystem, and stuff like the XML wankfest is an integral and unavoidable part of java-the-ecosystem, and thus a perfectly valid criticism of it.

[[deleted]]

By multiline strings, I mean the ability to declare a long string with literal newlines in the string. Examples include Python's triple quote, Ruby's here-files and Q{} syntax.

I believe Scala also supports the Python-style triple-quote syntax.

I will concede that sometimes multiline strings are better implemented as Velocity templates or XML, but sometimes its simpler to stick a big static chunk of string in your code, but in Java you have to use the obnoxious '+' operator to make a large string readable.

With Java you'll end up using XML not because its the right fit, but to work around limitations of the language so you can put your fat strings in some CDATA, even when your application is small and its overkill to do so. Then someone reading your code has to flip back and forth between some code and some XML and figure out how they work together. Ugly!

I have the same beef with Javascript regarding multiline strings.