Agreed Java is simply far too complex a language and ecosystem to hold in the mind. Python is as ubiquitous and much easier to deal with.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:25 AM David Crayford < 00000595a051454b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I’m not sure I would use Java as a REXX alternative now we have Python. > REXX is very much legacy now. The old timers love it because it’s all they > know but push come to shove Python is much easier to learn then Java with > all the OO cruft. > > > On 19 Apr 2024, at 7:50 AM, Andrew Rowley <and...@blackhillsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > On 18/04/2024 8:29 pm, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > >> The mileage of people here vary including the Java people themselves > who have started to reduce the need of explicit declarations like the new > "var" (imitating JavaScript) instead of strict types or foregoing the > static main method such that one can at least code the main method without > the explicit declarations. The motivation about these changes is to make > Java easier, reduce typing needs and the like. > > > > The Java var keyword is more like C# than Javascript. The variable still > has a strict type - you can only use var if the compiler can figure out the > type from other information e.g. > > > > var start = ZonedDateTime.now(); > > > > start is a ZonedDateTime. You can't use it before it is defined, you > can't assign anything other than a ZoneDateTime to it, you can't create a > new variable called start in the same scope, whether or not it is a > ZoneDateTime. You can't e.g compare it to a LocalDateTime without > specifying a timezone for the LocalDateTime - that is one of those things > that helps avoid errors. > > > > var just reduces redundant code, e.g. specifying the type twice in the > same statement. > > > > > >> Of course a static and statically typed languages with a compiler must > define as much rules as possible, such that the compiler can check for them > all. The more rules the more time consuming and the more difficult to learn > a language. > > > > I think the syntax rules for Rexx are actually more complex than Java, > because it is less likely to flag an error if you do something that's not > actually what you want. E.g. string concatenation where variables are > expected to be strings but maybe not, might not be initialized, sometimes > you need vertical bars but not always etc. If you're used to the language > you write it without thinking and avoid the traps, but the rules are there > nonetheless. > > > > Java is relatively straightforward, and shares many rules with other > languages - C++, C# etc. I'm not saying Java is perfect - it has its own > traps (int vs Integer etc) but I find it a much easier language to work > with. > > > > -- > > Andrew Rowley > > Black Hill Software > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Jay Maynard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
