If you use a proper IDE you don't have to type any of that, IntelliJ and
Eclipse (the ones I know well) generate your getters and setters with a
single shortcut.
Though objects with getters and setters were created with the intent of easy
to change through a ui, which is not the case with most development now a
days, a lot of people still use them.
If you TDD your code you'll find that the amount of tests that you write for
both (dynamic and static) is the same but it takes you 4 (just to use your
number) times more to write it in Java.
Most of the frustration comes with the low level of the java language that
lacks some higher level constructs that would make your code more elegant
and terse.
Nuno
On 23 April 2010 22:08, Steel City Phantom <scpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> maybe i am simply set in my ways, but i don't mind the boiler plate stuff.
> one thing about java that does get old real quick is having to write
> getters and setters for fields. ive been doing some stuff in VB9 lately
> that has properties and i was so excited when i realized it supported
> properties but was dismayed when i realized i STILL had to code a getter and
> setter type deal for it.
>
> i want transfer objects (and i use that term generically) to be like this
> class foo {
> property String bar;
> }
>
> done!!!
>
> then still have the option to say something like
>
> class foo {
> property String bar;
>
> @override
> public getBar() {
> if (bar == null)
> return "";
> else
> return bar;
> }
>
> if the need comes up. but other things in some of these languages i can
> see will save some time but they do strip out a lot of stuff that drew me to
> java to begin with, static typing being the primary.
>
> the weak typing of other languages do make things faster to write and
> easier on the front side. but inevitably it always gets sloppy, especially
> when your on a team of people with people coming and going. the argument
> that its solved with unit tests to me is rediculous. the time you just
> saved by using a weak typed language was just lost writing 4 times the
> amount of unit tests you need to verify basic functionality.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:26 PM, twitter.com/nfma <
> nuno.filipe.marq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Misko 100%.
>>
>> I have yet to meet someone that wrote an app in a dynamic language using
>> TDD that didn't have the same kind of experience that Misko had.
>>
>> Everyone seems to be frustrated when going back to Java with the verbosity
>> of the language, lack of high level constructs and the broken generics.
>>
>> To my knowledge Scala and Haskell have a proper type systems that really
>> saves your fingers but unfortunately Java doesn't...
>>
>> Nuno
>>
>>
>> On 23 April 2010 21:02, Alexey Zinger <inline_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As was briefly mentioned, let's keep in mind distinction between dynamic
>>> and weak typing. I looked at the link in your post and some things jumped
>>> out at me that I just had to respond to (I realize the bog post is not yours
>>> personally):
>>>
>>> > If you can’t understand it, just rewrite it, after all its just couple
>>> of hundred lines, how long can it take you?
>>> Whaaaaaat? That's his answer to the problem of understanding loosely
>>> typed, dense code? Sure, it's possible to make an impenetrable mess using
>>> any language, dynamically typed or not, but usually when I'm having a hard
>>> time with something written in Java, it's either because the code is laid
>>> out in such a way that it undermines basic OOP principles, including
>>> loosening type restrictions, where it shouldn't, or there's some non-trivial
>>> flow of control lacking in documentation. The latter, such as asynchronous
>>> calls, is not easy to deal with in any language at this time, but
>>> documentation is usually the answer.
>>>
>>> > Code Density in dynamic languages are phenomenal! All of the endless
>>> casting, coercing and repetition in declaration simply is not there
>>> resulting in very dense code.
>>> I smell pure FUD. Even without reified generics, Java hasn't had the
>>> need for much of casting in how long now? Especially if you're doing web
>>> development and not using Swing, which lacks generified API.
>>>
>>> > I can see how a dynamic language can be a nightmare if you don’t have
>>> tests.
>>> This is an interesting statement. I do agree -- testing is important and
>>> if you lose static typing, it has to take on extra responsibility. But then
>>> let's not compare apples and oranges. Let's not compare code we write in a
>>> statically typed language same code in a dynamically typed language.
>>> Instead, we should be compared code in a statically typed language against
>>> code in a dynamically typed language plus the test code that might not have
>>> to be written in the presence of a compiler. Suddenly, it's not so clear
>>> where the line should be drawn indicating how much extra test code and time
>>> gets put into a dynamically typed environment.
>>>
>>> And, at the risk of being crass, I couldn't pass this up:
>>> > Compilers are great at telling you that you have miss-typed something
>>> or that you assumptions about classes are wrong
>>> Touché :) Having English as a second language, I can make fun.
>>>
>>> Alexey
>>> 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
>>> 2002 Suzuki Bandit 1200S
>>> 1992 Kawasaki EX500
>>> http://azinger.blogspot.com
>>> http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
>>> http://wcollage.sourceforge.net
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* ivko3 <ivan.st.iva...@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* The Java Posse <javaposse@googlegroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Fri, April 23, 2010 9:32:37 AM
>>> *Subject:* [The Java Posse] Re: please explain the desire for a dynamic
>>> typing language
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was also wondering why do people make so big fuss around languages
>>> like Groovy, [J]Ruby, PHP, etc.
>>>
>>> Then I got the task for a personal website, and I'm doing it in Java
>>> +Spring+JPA + all the stuff around. I want to finish this application
>>> very fast (in the next 5 weeks) and I can work on it only during half
>>> of the week's nights. As I have a hello-world-experience with groovy
>>> and the grails framework, I think that right now I am in position that
>>> I would like to have "loved the Groovy" earlier. Because there,
>>> especially with the help of Grails, you don't have to write all the
>>> boilerplate code. And with a web application that accesses the DB
>>> there's a lot of that (think about all the DAOs and stuff). I know
>>> that in the Java world Spring are doing something in that direction
>>> with Roo, but I would like to have more control than it's offering me.
>>> Anyway, that's another topic.
>>>
>>> Directly to your question. My personal opinion is that you can have
>>> very fast results in some mainstream [web-]applications with dynamic
>>> languages and frameworks around them. The lack of compiler seems to be
>>> a problem, but not quite. Just check this blog:
>>>
>>> http://misko.hevery.com/2010/04/07/move-over-java-i-have-fallen-in-love-with-javascript
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 3:57 pm, Robert Casto <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I think the issue has to do with features and functionality. They want
>>> to be
>>> > more productive and with these new languages, you can do that. I think
>>> your
>>> > concerns are valid though. Unless you are careful, there are plenty of
>>> > opportunities for bugs. The new languages do a lot of things better and
>>> they
>>> > are trying to eliminate the problems you mention. Still, I like being
>>> told
>>> > about problems at compile time rather than during testing or worse, in
>>> > production. I came to Java from C/C++ and enjoyed the garbage
>>> collection,
>>> > simpler reference handling, and other features. These new languages are
>>> much
>>> > more productive, but there are always tradeoffs.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM, scphantm <scpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > ive been looking a few languages the past few days, groovy, ruby
>>> being
>>> > > the big two. i see all over the web people praising the world of
>>> > > dynamic type languages and the same question keeps ringing in my
>>> head,
>>> > > WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT A DYNAMIC TYPING LANGUAGE???? i came
>>> > > to java from the VB and PHP world. both of those are dynamically
>>> > > typed and it was that one thing that drove me nuts. especially in
>>> > > working with teams of developers. when i moved to java and its
>>> static
>>> > > typing system, everything finally made sense, tweetie birds were
>>> > > flying, humming birds were humming around around and i was in love, i
>>> > > found a language that is quick and has inherent type checking built
>>> in
>>> > > at compile time.
>>> >
>>> > > i just remember the disasters and amount of bugs that occured with me
>>> > > in the dark days of (god help me) asp, vbscript, and to an extent PHP
>>> > > and don't understand why anyone in their right mind would not want
>>> > > their language of choice to be statically typed? ive heard the
>>> answer
>>> > > of, well its easier, in this case in my mind easy=lazy. i don't get
>>> > > it, please educate me.
>>> >
>>> > > --
>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > > "The Java Posse" group.
>>> > > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%
>>> 2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> > > .
>>> > > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Robert Castowww.IWantFreeShipping.com
>>> > Find Amazon Filler Items easily!
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "The Java Posse" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+
>>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "The Java Posse" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+
>>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "The Java Posse" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "The Java Posse" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> You want it fast, cheap, or right. Pick two!!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
