I don't find Java all that complex. I really dislike its syntax because I prefer more verbose and readable programming languages, but it's got other virtue I absolutely love.
The complexity is in the problems we're attacking, people! If there's a complaint to be made, it's that Java might be reaching its limit in terms of its ability to effectively address the complexities we are now encountering in our problem domains. I don't really believe it, but you could say it. I think a key problem is that we're rushing our work too much. I think we're more productive because of Java, but what are we producing? No requirements, little design, lots of busy. On Jul 25, 5:23 am, Phil <p...@surfsoftconsulting.com> wrote: > 'Complex and unproductive' - a perfectly defensible position for > 'smaller' systems (by this I mean single box order of magnitude). > However this seems to me to be simply repeating the Microsoft mantra > around .Net being quick and easy to develop in. When you start looking > at large systems, systems that must scale out and reliably support > high transaction rates, development is complex in any language. > > I don't regard Java as intricate or verbose. Flexible, yes. Well- > designed components with properly assigned responsibilities are > anything but. In my experience, code that can be described as > intricate and verbose - in any language - has inherent design flaws. > Bearing in mind I've earned money writing Pascal, 68000 assembly, > Fortran, Cobol, C and Java I can't think back to a single situation > where intricacy or verbosity can be laid anywhere than at the door of > the developer. > > A fairer appraisal would be to say that Java is a flexible language > with deep support across the enterprise stack that can be applied in > practically any business scenario and runtime environment. Newer JVM > languages such as Scala are a powerful addition - they provide real > benefits in terms of simplifying the expression of a problem/solution > but do so in a runtime environment that allows them to easily re-use > the large pool of Java code that is already out there. If they are > truly simpler then they are so because they have sacrificed a degree > of granularity, or the ability to address specific problem spaces. > > Imagine writing a new language that was not dependent on the JVM. Now > take that and make it a JVM based language. Which is more powerful? > JVM languages like Scala have taken off quickly because of the depth > of support behind them in the shape of millions of lines of reusable > Java. I expect the good JVM languages to start cropping up more in the > business domain of the solution while Java will continue to be the > dominant language in the underlying architecture. A bit like how we > used to drop to assembly language when our C code wasn't sufficiently > granular or plan fast enough. > > On Jul 24, 10:06 am, Blanford <euroscript...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/23/1838243 > > > I have wondered this for years, how Java could be the language of > > choice for web application design. > > > Java is so much more complex and unproductive compared to a language > > like Python. > > This adds up to time and money. > > > If I ran a business I would definitely use Java as little as possible. > > > snydeq writes > > "Google distinguished engineer Rob Pike ripped the use of Java and C++ > > during his keynote at OSCON, saying that these 'industrial programming > > languages' are way too complex and not adequately suited for today's > > computing environments. 'I think these languages are too hard to use, > > too subtle, too intricate. They're far too verbose and their subtlety, > > intricacy and verbosity seem to be increasing over time. They're > > oversold, and used far too broadly,' Pike said. 'How do we have stuff > > like this [get to be] the standard way of computing that is taught in > > schools and is used in industry? [This sort of programming] is very > > bureaucratic. Every step must be justified to the compiler.' Pike also > > spoke out against the performance of interpreted languages and dynamic > > typing." -- 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.
