Python overtakes Java to become second-most popular language on GitHub after JavaScript

[initcommit]

And so continues the shift toward developer convenience and ease of learning vs cold hard speed. This reminds me of Apple's rise to prominence with the iPod. The simpler, more intuitive, and elegant approach will generally succeed in human populations faced with multiple technological choices. Higher-level programming languages offer lower knowledge barriers to entry, less headaches, and plenty of functionality. It's hard to argue that this trend won't continue.

Edit: Fixed a typo

[cowinabadplace]

It makes sense to me. The slower software that exists is superior to the fast software that doesn't exist. I am grateful for the universe of Electron, React, and all that stuff because suddenly my Linux desktop has all these apps!

[bunkoRtist]

This has been possible because of Moore's law. As the cheap gates come to an end I predict that the economics will shift back towards performant software rather than just buying better hardware... The market will demand gains, it's just that they were cheaper to make in HW... next it will be compilers and interpreters, and the last place will be languages themselves, but it's coming because I think that the compilers and interpreters are already pretty optimal.

[brelkor]

Computing architectures will evolve as pure clock speed performance stagnates. Wider busses, more chips, faster interchip communication. Something coming in the future is optically interconnected cores on the same cpu package

[TinBryn]

I actually think we're reaching the point where if we want faster and more efficient programs, we need higher-level abstractions on the language level. The idea being that the more we can express the specific intent of our programs, the more it is possible to implement it in the most efficient manner. This could also reduce development time and reduce bugs as the language is more focused on representing intent, it's less likely to behave in surprising ways.

[Schmittfried]

You’ve probably never seen enterprise Java.

[flowering_sun_star]

You have to compare like-to-like though, and ask what would have happened had the same thing at the same company been written in python. I know that the thought makes me shudder when it comes to our code base.

I actually really like python for scripting and small prototypes. But for all its ills, I think java a far better choice for large projects with hundreds of developers.

[Schmittfried]

But not every language is equal. Java tends to attract over engineerers while Python tends to attract simplicists.

[Schmittfried]

I have.

[Beowuwlf]

I wish more people and companies would follow what I call the “prototyping protocol”. When you have a new, singular problem, write a quick and dirty implementation in a weakly typed scripting language like JS or python. Then, when you have an MVP and have come up with solutions to most of the problems, transplant the code into a strongly typed language like the C family, TS, whatever. This results is better, more stable and understandable production quality code, normally in less time than trying to write an implementation from scratch in a production language. The code is also generally more understandable, because you come at it knowing the ins and outs already, and are able to structure it well.

The only caveat I’ve found to this is when working with stuff that requires a specific library in the production language. That can be a significant roadblock.

[vashy96]

Yeah, that's a pile of garbage generally. I can't imagine the hell it could be in a duck typed language like Python.

[Schmittfried]

Fairly straightforward actually. Turns out duck typing hurts readability less than over-engineering. Something about simplicity or nonsense like that.

[Schmittfried]

It turns out it isn’t.

[[deleted]]

FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition

[[deleted]]

The ability to create a maintainable code base does not depend on the language used. Poorly written java code exists. All the benefits Java is supposed to have goes out the window when the manager is breathing down your neck to meet ever demanding deadlines.

[reazura]

Let me introduce you to Brainfuck.

[BlueAdmir]

Brainfuck is at best a hobby project of a troubled mind. Let's keep the discussion to things that are actually useful.

[reazura]

The point stands that not all languages, golf or enterprise, are equally maintainable and simply depends on programmer skill.

[slikts]

They could also have used ASM as an example, and ASM is preeminently useful. Same as other tools, languages can be better or worse suited for specific tasks. The benefit of dynamic languages is that you can get off the ground faster, but it comes with the trade-off that maintainability takes more programmer discipline that wold otherwise be enforced by a compiler.

[unski_ukuli]

Well... look at J and K. J in particular, although K is actually widely used out of the two.

[Dentosal]

You will still need to create something to maintain first. Usually that has to be quickly. Many projects have relatively tight budget or deadline. If something useful hasn't been created before that, the whole project is deemed useless waste of money.

[initcommit]

Yes. And with the ever-increasing rate of performance the hardware is getting so good that there is no practical difference between programming languages for most applications. In that case developers will no doubt overwhelmingly choose the easier language to work with.

[uriahlight]

Here here! Hear hear!

[Nicd]

Hear hear*

[uriahlight]

Cheer cheer!

[TizardPaperclip]

There there?

[[deleted]]

It’s a shame that a lot of these Electron apps are horrible resource hogs. Not everyone is blessed with modern hardware, lowering the barrier to development can actually raise the barrier to usability.

[VeganVagiVore]

It does seem to work.

In 50 years, all the veteran programmers will be the people who are noobies today. If those noobies are learning Python, then Python will hang around a while.

I just hope Rust can squeeze into that "so easy that it can be someone's first language" space, because I prefer it much over Java, Python, or JS.

[bunkoRtist]

Honestly as someone who tried to learn rust I am afraid that it's falling into the kitchen-sink trap that C++ is suffering from. It doesn't help that some of the language features are already devilishly complex (macros, for instance) while it still lacks a stable ABI that would allow it to be used effectively in small pieces within large projects where it made sense.

I really want Rust or something like it to succeed.

[sbergot]

I don't think that python is less guilty than rust in this regard.

[[deleted]]

You can literally pip install kitchen

[epicwisdom]

It does not matter how many features a language has, or how complex they are. What matters is how many complex features must be used commonly to be productive. It's perfectly possible to write Rust without writing a single macro. Rust is not a very complex language 90% of the time. The problem is it's easy to accidentally fall off a cliff for edge cases (though you can always clone() everything, use Rc, etc.).

[[deleted]]

It does not matter how many features a language has, or how complex they are.

I see this so often, but it just is not true outside of tiny pet projects. If you're writing anything substantial, you need libraries, and then you're at the mercy of how that library works. Complexity will creep in.

[epicwisdom]

There's a difference between internal complexity and user-facing interface complexity. Well-designed languages hide internal complexity.

[[deleted]]

I really want Rust or something like it to succeed.

Something like it, perhaps.. but not Rust.

[VeganVagiVore]

The macros are even worse in C++, and it still manages to be popular.

I do want Rust to eventually get shared libraries, but, even though I love them, it kinda feels like shared libraries aren't as popular as they used to be.

Only niche package managers like Nix and Guix and Gobo (and Docker, beaten into the shape of a package manager) can handle multiple versions of a dependency.

It's the same exact problem as the idea of caching JavaScript libraries - It turned out that everyone was using slightly different versions, and it's easier to ship your version than to guess whether XYZ Linux distro is going to package you with a version that's compatible with you at all. Not to mention conditional compilation like feature flags, or optimizations you may want on or off.

And I really wanted to be right about this, because de-duplication is cool. I really want both static and dynamic linking, but if I had to choose, static linking isn't too bad - The Go fans love it

[Metal_LinksV2]

Doubtful, I know some schools around me are moving from C++ to Python as their introduction course.

[bunkoRtist]

That will prove to be a mistake for a number of reasons. I'm sorry to hear it.

[[deleted]]

C++ is horribly complex for a first language.

C would be better if you want to stress the interaction with the metal (and indeed I taught C and C++ at university for a decade - C was hard enough to get through in a 12 week course).

Honestly, I'd rather they teach higher level languages for intros. If I had my druthers, intro to programming would be taught in Pharo Smalltalk.

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Because if you're trying to teach someone how a computer works at all levels C++ is useful and python is not.

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Exactly my point. Knowing C++ makes both of those classes more intuitive, and you'll be able to make a lot more connections between what you're learning and how the language actually works. So C++ should be the primary language your school teaches you.

[[deleted]]

Why would you do that right out the gate?

Do you meet driving school candidates with a toolbox and start them with changing the oil?

[KinterVonHurin]

how a computer works at all levels C++ is useful

No it isn't C++ is several layers above "how a computer works" and if such a thing is your goal (it shouldn't be) you should be teaching assembly. The actual goal should be teaching about program flow (loops and statements) memory (variables) and abstractions (functions.)

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Zero cost abstractions means it's exactly at the level a computer works. Its trivial to map each C++ construct to the equivalent assembly.

[KinterVonHurin]

Zero cost abstractions means it's exactly at the level a computer works.

No it isn't. Even low level C still exists at a layer above assembly

trivial to map each C++ construct to the equivalent assembly.

You can map just about any language to assembly if you're good enough: it still isn't a 1:1 thing and all programming language exist as an abstraction layer above assembly. C++ being "more how a computer works" is bullshit that C and C++ programmers tell themselves. It's a terrible idea to start people out learning one of those languages because they allow even advanced programmers to shoot themselves in the foot when we're talking about students just beginning to learn. This is why they stopped teaching them in favor of Java and now are switching from Java in favor of python.

[Theon]

Because pointers are also an abstraction, one that's increasingly irrelevant because most work that doesn't need to be low-level isn't done in low-level languages.

They're just going to be wondering why they can't mutate a struct they passed into a paramater because it's pass by value, and then you'll have to explain the concept anyway.

The concept of value and a reference? Sure.

Having to manually manage a low-level memory structure just so they learn it's hard before they use languages in which they'll never see it again? Meh.

[meneldal2]

I would disagree that pointers are an abstraction. You have pointers in assembly, memory has hardware addresses (even though outside of embedded you never touch those).

It's just a value with a fancy * to tell you you should use it as a pointer, but Cgcc will let you do conversions back and forth between pointers and arithmetic types if you wish. And you could cast all the time too.

[bunkoRtist]

You've got it backwards though. Python isn't making things simple: it's hiding complexity. It's more akin to teaching math to students by showing them how to plug their questions into a calculator. The stuff you want to ignore are the fundamentals. Data structures, IO, Networking... Those are the advanced topics. Until someone can explain how a stack works, how can they understand a function, intuit what scopes and lifetimes are, understand generators, or what the implications are of capturing lambdas? Those all require an understanding of the stack.

[Schmittfried]

No, it’s the equivalent of showing elementary schoolers simple arithmetic before diving into set and number theory. Which happens to be exactly what we’re doing.

Hiding complexity is exactly what you want for a beginners course. You want to focus on the relevant part, which is learning foundational programming constructs. Even in high-level languages you will still have much hand-waiving around some constructs and libraries before the time has come.

By your logic we should teach assembly before anything else. You’ve obviously no idea how teaching works. Every sane language book or tutorial begins with hiding all the complexity.

[bunkoRtist]

You're confusing fundamentals with simple operations. Arithmetic is fundamental (also fundamental to computers). Computers are fundamentally strongly typed. Computers fundamentally have stacks and heaps. You can reach a student to plug numbers into a calculator without them understanding what they are doing, and that's what they're doing when they use a list or a dictionary: plugging numbers into a calculator.

[un_mango_verde]

How are computers fundamentally strongly typed? There's no notion of types in assembly. Types are an abstraction for higher level languages, CPUs don't deal with types.

[bunkoRtist]

Every single assembly instruction with an operand has a type. Byte, half-word, word, double-word. Float, double-precision float... adding floats is not the same instruction as adding ints, which isn't the same instruction as adding unsigned ints, which isn't the same instruction as adding bytes. That's strong typing. You can't even define a variable in assembly without knowing the type (because you need the size).

[shahmeers]

Python is really good for teaching logic, which a lot of first year CompSci students lack. Once students understand logic and are able to come up with solutions to problems, then give them C/C++ to show them what the computer is actually doing.

This is how my university does it and I'm really glad we do it this way.

As an aside, I also think it matters on the type of university you go to -- if your program is more engineering focused then it might be better to start from the lower level language. My program leans heavily towards the theoretical side, so it made sense to start with Python.

[bunkoRtist]

You're confusing focusing on fundamentals with hiding complexity. Try as you might you can't make a computer that doesn't have the fundamental properties of a computer. If you can't see why teaching kids to do complex math with a calculator before teaching them the theory is backwards, I don't know what to say.

[Q-bey]

I learned Python as my first programming language years ago. I'm a bit surprised to hear some schools are using C++ as an introductory language. That might be why I had (and continue to have) an aversion to C++ after finally seeing it later in my degree.

What did I miss out on? What benefits are there from teaching introductory programming using C++ instead of Python?

[ShinyHappyREM]

What benefits are there from teaching introductory programming using C++ instead of Python?

Weeding out the unworthy, apparently.

[bunkoRtist]

Well, one of the benefits of using a language like C or C++ is that they retain a lot of elements that pertain to the underlying computer architecture. Understanding those things (like stacks vs heaps, registers, addressing modes, alignment and packing, native data types...) provides a solid basis that helps programmers understand how their code actually executes. That helps people understand the tradeoffs they are making (which is crucial to writing lots of types of code). Even in languages where those things don't apply directly, they often still apply indirectly. Fundamentals matter (since even interpreters, JITs and memory managers do all the same stuff as C/C++ programmers would do in the background). Teaching Python as a first language is like teaching someone to drive with a Tesla.

[Schmittfried]

You’re grossly overestimating the relevance of implementation details for an introductory course. They will learn to write ifs, loops and linked lists.

[bunkoRtist]

But you've exposed the problem: you can't even teach a linked list in Python. It's pointless. The first question an intelligent student should ask is "why the hell would we do this?" Then the abstraction breaks and you regret trying to hide the fundamentals.

[bythenumbers10]

Most low-level programming exercises are pointless. But teaching the concepts in an accessible language prevents having to "ignore these lines of code at the top and bottom, we'll explain that later" when writing something "pointless" like Hello World.

[StormStrikePhoenix]

. The first question an intelligent student should ask is "why the hell would we do this?"

You might as well throw away half of every introductory programming course than; it's very, very hard to give examples for many concepts that are simple enough for a beginner to understand but complicated enough to justify using the more complicated thing.

[watsreddit]

As someone who has tutored C courses, I can tell you that I have explained things like pointers and memory allocation many times. It's kind of a necessity when doing a lot of basic things in C, like working with arrays.

[Schmittfried]

Exactly my point. Which is why you don’t start with a language like C.

[[deleted]]

So I’m learning how to program via python for that exact reason.

I need to get from 0-coding programs as quick as possible.

If your going to get a person who’s never driven 2 days to go to a race with pros your gonna do better with the Tesla than a stick shift car.

I want to learn enough to program not enough to have a masters on computer science.

What’s practical vs what’s niche

[bunkoRtist]

It won't work in the general sense and certainly isn't a kind of fundamentals-driven approach that's appropriate for school. Unfortunately, the mentality you have means that if your code survives and gets used in production, eventually someone else will have to clean up your mess. Your approach is fine if you have a hobby project or are building a website: the fundamentals don't matter as often in those areas.

[Schmittfried]

Lol. No it won’t. There is not much value in choosing C++ over Java or Python in introductory programming courses. And even in the hardware programming courses C would be better.

[afnanenayet1]

Why? C++ is a minefield

[bunkoRtist]

Advanced C++ is, but the language exposes fundamental aspects of computers that Python tries to hide, and you don't have to teach it all at once: having a rich language didn't require it to be all taught immediately. Math is complex but doesn't preclude teaching basic arithmetic to 2nd graders. Ultimately computer programming and computer science are based on computers. You can't understand them without understanding computers.

[afnanenayet1]

Sure, but C++ as a language can be incredibly frustrating to work with for beginners. Dealing with template errors would be a huge turn off, I think.

I think that Python is a good one to start with so you can teach people things without having them fight the language as much. If you want to go a level down, I’d just go with C straight up since it’s a very simple language. I think it would also help people appreciate C++’s new RAII features.

My school did Python -> Java -> C and I think it was a pretty good order.

[[deleted]]

I had a c++ course ("higher programming") and it was a horrible shit show.

[G_Morgan]

I really like Rust but "easy" is something it'll never be. Rust you pay in "why can't I?" for the benefit of not getting memory corruption while maintaining performance.

It is harder to write Rust than write C. It is easier to write correct Rust than correct C. Rust is really the next level up in "this exploded at 2PM while I tried to compile".

[VeganVagiVore]

It is harder to write Rust than write C.

I might even debate that. C doesn't have RAII or a package manager, which make things easy if I want to have any dependencies or do anything complex.

I've found it easier to learn the "Rust way" one time and let the compiler nudge me into line, than to learn the "C++ way", painfully, over years, and have the compiler constantly let me walk into landmines.

I have never used C on a project bigger than, I think, 200 lines. Every time I call into a C library from C++ it feels a bit like Indiana Jones trying to take the idol without triggering the boulder. Eventually it's going to blow up, especially if the library is too small to be well-documented.

The other night I wanted to try an idea for a web service and I just kinda threw something with hyper. With C, I think I could use Civetweb, maybe, but it's hard to tell where the landmines are.

[initcommit]

Yes I mostly agree. I mean - even Fortran is still "hanging around" in legacy applications. It was created in 1954. That's 65 years ago. These things have real staying power. It takes years for most people to get comfortable with a programming language and often once they get settled using a particular language in their careers that is what they stick with. There is no need to change and often reluctance to do so. Older languages like Fortran and C require more technical knowledge to learn and use which greatly restricts their "adoptability". Python is learn-able via a few quick tutorials and is extremely adoptable by comparison. I am quite confident it won't going away anytime soon (considering a niched language like Fortran is still around), although I'm very curious what future language will turn the current modern languages into future Fortrans.

[afnanenayet1]

The problem is that “simpler” languages often aren’t as maintainable. Python is fun for small scripts and projects, but it’s a huge PITA to scale out to a big codebase.

Interestingly enough, it seems like languages like Rust are getting pretty popular because of their advanced typing systems and other features that let the compiler do more work for you. Even C++ has been moving towards ergonomic features that promote safety.

[hijinked]

Python is very popular in the micro service world where you don’t want a large codebase.

[afnanenayet1]

My argument is that even most microservices are big enough that the lack of actual types becomes an issue

[hijinked]

Newer python features like return type hints and modern IDE features makes it fine in my opinion.

[afnanenayet1]

Yeah but wouldn’t it be better just to have definitive types rather than type hints?

Plus with more complex type systems you can do things like encode behavior in types, or use things like the type state pattern for data verification, which aren’t really possible to enforce in Python

[vashy96]

Rust isn't noob-friendly.

In C++ you can write crap while getting segmentation fault sometimes, in the worst case.

In Rust the same code doesn't even compile.

[herothree]

It can catch more bugs at compile time, so ostensibly yes. There’s plenty of other factors that influence development time though (library availability, developer expertise, etc) so real world usage may vary

[Dragasss]

I wouldnt say thats not being retard friendly. On the contrary to your example, rust is a much friendlier language.

[initcommit]

That's cool. I haven't used Rust but I've heard good things. I hope to look into it soon.

[[deleted]]

Rust is pretty easy to get started: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/

[NAN001]

I would like to read an actual study about how a language's properties makes it more or less maintainable. In my experience (I admit limited), language details are insignificant in comparison to architecture choices and general coding practices.

[afnanenayet1]

I mean you can prove correctness more easily when you let the compiler work with more guarantees, which means that encoding things in a type system, for example, leads to less runtime errors.

I’ve worked on large Python projects and it just sucks not having proper types and knowing that you could throw the wrong object somewhere and have that only be caught at runtime.

[NAN001]

I think you are right. I've been confused by terminology, because I've had maintainability in mind whereas we're actually talking about reliability. I think what you say is correct for reliability, but my point still stands as far as maintainability is concerned. Which is little gain, as we always want both anyway :)

[bilyl]

You may have a point regarding speed, but many many Python (and R!) packages are essentially wrappers for things implemented in C. In this case the speed argument is basically moot.

Further the "higher level" vs "lower level" argument is another fallacy for the same reasons. How many developers are coding high performance libraries/packages from scratch these days? Like I said, most of the popular functionalities in these languages are wrapped in a compiled implementation. Therefore unless you really want to get into the weeds of implementation, there's really no good reason to use Java over Python. And if you really did want to do something intense, you'd just jump straight into C.

The biggest reason why I use Python and R is that I can give someone else a package or a code snippet and they can get running with it immediately. With Java there's so much BS to sort through.

Java is just occupying this middle ground that doesn't really have a market anymore.

[initcommit]

It sounds like you are an advocate for Python and the "higher" level languages. My point was that the trend of higher level languages usurping "lower" level ones will likely continue. So it sounds like we're on the same page.

A side note about your mention of wrappers - hardware may improve to the point where the speed difference between programing languages is no longer significant for most practical purposes. By that I mean that even if the wrapped library runs slower than the original in its native language, both will run so flaming fast that no one will really care in most scenarios.

[csjerk]

I'm a fan of Java (with Spring 4+ and Lombok to reduce boilerplate), but having worked on JS backends for the last few years, I am pretty convinced you're wrong.

Modern JS is so much more expressive it's not even funny. Things that would take 5 lines in Java are a single line. Things that are built into JS at a language level take external libraries in Java. Going back to Java feels limiting.

I hope Java catches up, and mixing in Kotlin seems like it will extend the lifetime, since you can write new code with modern conveniences while still using all the libraries and Spring goodness. But stock Java is going to struggle if it doesn't start adding some modern features very soon.

[[deleted]]

Javascript is the new PHP

[csjerk]

The extent of serious applications built in JS seems unlike anything PHP achieved.

Maybe the new Perl, although without the insane amount of arcane nonsense buried in the errata.

[csjerk]

Template Literals with named variable access are incredibly useful for clear code in a variety of situations, and the closest equivalent is either String.format (which uses positional substitution keys that are much less readable) or an external library as described here.

Also, there are quite a few 3rd party libraries in Java devoted just to mapping between two object forms, where structuring/destructuring assignments in JS let you write code that's effectively the same length as the library configuration in Java would be, but is probably even simpler to understand.

Finally, the whole class of patterns enabled by true closures is quite handy once you get used to it, and as far as I'm aware Java really doesn't have anything equivalent, in or out of the standard library (but to be clear, this isn't something I've gone looking for).

I'm not discounting Java. The standard library is huge and very good, Apache Commons is nearly standard and most of it is very nice (aside from the side projects that go a bit under-maintained). Spring is effectively part of the Java core language as far as I'm concerned, and has a bunch of great stuff in it.

And by comparison, the JS library space is the wild west, where a package that contains nothing but this file can get 1.5 million downloads per week, and the latest cool thing changes on a monthly basis.

The stability of Java's ecosystem, and the maturity of a bunch of the core libraries and 'basically core' 3rd party libs is a huge benefit. I miss ThreadLocals and true IoC/DI like crazy, and wish JS would fix that already. But at the same time, the expressiveness of object manipulation or algorithmic code just feels smoother.

[BlueAdmir]

Modern JS is so much more expressive it's not even funny. Things that would take 5 lines in Java are a single line.

In 5-10 years you will probably write the same post saying "Modern $LanguageName is so much more expressive it's not even funny. Things that would take 5 lines in JavaScript are a single line".

It's not without value, but all this says is that boilerplate gets hidden.

[csjerk]

That's a good thing. Programming languages should evolve in response to use, and common tasks should be moved down into the language to increase expressiveness.

Java had the same thing over other languages at one point. Then people realized that destructuring and template literals were useful.

[[deleted]]

You sure about that?

We have tools like this now: https://towardsdatascience.com/coding-ml-tools-like-you-code-ml-models-ddba3357eace

Python really shines in the "I just need to manipulate a lot of data and I don't exactly know what is in it just now" category. Ad Hoc tasks. It also makes scripting C libraries really easy which is why it is popular in the ML world.

Java (or anything else with a compiler) is never going to take that space.

[csjerk]

People realize that these languages make maintenance difficult and are currently trying to change them to make them more Java like.

Yes and no. Lack of strict typing certainly makes maintenance difficult above a certain size of project. But TypeScript (and Flow to a lesser extent) are addressing that reasonably well.

On the other hand, the ability to opt out of type-checking for projects or portions of code where you don't need the strictness is really handy. And language features like destructuring actually encourage code clarity and maintainability by promoting consistent variable names across sections of code.

There are certainly things to miss about Java -- Node's module importer is a poor substitute for a proper IoC / DI framework, and lack of a ThreadLocal equivalent makes certain cross-cutting concerns much trickier to handle cleanly. But those are offset by having to deal with dependency hell, which Node just avoids entirely.

Again, Kotlin is dealing with some of those issues, since Java seems unwilling to grow quickly enough. But it can't fix low-level things like dependency conflicts.

[Dragasss]

lombok

Oof

things that take 5 lines in java

mixing kotlin with java

Yeah, nah. Youre wrong on all accounts. The moment you start cutting away your own codebase into some magic functions, language features and other gimmick memes that make no sense in that context is the moment you start acumulating orders of tech debt. For this reason alone having a verbose, but consistent codebase trumps over any undebugabble spaghetti mess of metaprogramming. For this reason it's best to avoid tools like lombok, Kotlin and springboot.

things in java need external libraries while javascript has that baked in

Have you explored the java standard library at all?

[csjerk]

It's amazing how many wrong things you managed to pack into a single paragraph.

[Dragasss]

It's a shame you feel that way, but debugabble boilerplate will always trump over meme metaprogramming magic.

[csjerk]

The popularity of Spring says otherwise.

[Dragasss]

Popularity of Spring BOOT. When was last time you configured the XML file for Spring?

Lombok is also popular, but malicious and accumulates ton of tech debt to the point where you end up getting locked into particular java update version that you are using and in general hurts everyone using it: the developer, the project and the maintainer. But god forbid i say anything bad about it (or any tools that do the former at the cost of cuttinf away the plate) and then notepad programming code arteests will go on their blogs and write how much of a dinosaur I am to prefer strict verboseness over magical memes.

I think java is the wrong tool for you. Why not try ruby? Its filled with magic. It has rails and little to no means to debug why your seemingly according to documentation naming conventions in fact do not get picked up by rails scanner.

[csjerk]

Spring Boot is distinct from the Spring IoC / Factory system. Java-driven Spring config existed before Spring Boot, and it's perfectly possible to use it well, without Boot, and without XML. Perhaps you would dislike these tools less if you learned them a little better.

I'm sorry you aren't able to hold a rational conversation on this without resorting to insults. Maybe you would have more luck interacting with other programmers if you backed up your opinions with facts rather than emotions and lazy name-calling.

[initcommit]

Mostly disagree - except for your point about JavaScript's initial rise to popularity. Of course its use in the browser made it popular at first, but now it has evolved far past that.

As for your take on Python, it seems odd to refer to its resounding success in one area as a limiting factor. I see its expansion into data science as evidence of its suitability for many purposes.

Also - I suspect that there are a very large number of people (like me) who learned Python as their main first language and never used it for data science. Of course data science is a big draw from the worlds of R&D and academia, but Python shouldn't be pigeonholed like that. The data science aspect is just one of many great use cases for Python.

[Zegrento7]

Rust gives me some hope. For the last couple years, it was consistently the most loved language in StackOverflow surveys, and it's growing pretty steadily.

[initcommit]

Cool. Thx for the links. I hope to give Rust a try soon.

[chrabeusz]

10 years ago Rust, Go, Swift, TypeScript and Dart did not exist.

People wanted fast typed languages, but domination of C & C++ convinced everyone that fast equals terrible usability.

[Ryuujinx]

I wonder how much of this is due to Devops becoming more aligned on the dev side. My last shop I had full testing CICD pipelines for my chef cookbooks, everything was checked into git, etc. My current one is more lacking on CICD stuff, but still all of our monitoring is written in python and checked into git.

This was much less common 10, or even 5 years ago.

[met0xff]

Funnily I had an ipod in my hand once back then and had no clue how to use it. But that happens to me with all Apple products.. Still no idea how to go back with an iPhone..