Going on the size of the language spec, and the number of "special cases",
or the number of defined keywords, Java is actually *more* complex than
Ruby/Python/Scala/Groovy
Comparing Java and Scala
--------------------------------
Scala:
everything is an object (no primitives)
any method can be used in operator notation
+, -, *, / etc are all valid method names
can you see where this is going?
1 + 2 is just sugar for 1.+(2)
myList append 42 is equivalent to myList.append(42)
etc...
User defined implicit conversions
Java:
has primitives
all operators are predefined and baked in, no overloading
some implicit conversions specified by the language
now consider how the following statement would be treated in both languages:
"hello " + worldObject + 42
Scala has a predefined implicit conversion from Any->String, this would be
used on worldObject and 42 (remember, no primitives) and the resulting
strings concatenated, job done!
In Java?
+ is defined as you would expect for primitives
but, Strings also get treated as primitives in many ways, such as this
special-case of the + operator
as defined for strings, if the right-hand value isn't already a string,
it'll call toString() on it
unless it's null, in which case the string "null" will be substituted
except when it's a primitive (which is a special case within this special
case), where the appropriate conversion will be made instead
And, really, Java is full of these special-cases and sub-special-cases.
Strings are a good source of them, as are primitives, enums, and generics.
All stuff that Scala takes a more coherent, consistent approach to
throughout the language.
On 28 July 2010 16:31, phil.swen...@gmail.com <phil.swen...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Complex? Actually Java is a pretty simple language. Ruby/Python/
> Scala/Groovy all have many more features and richer syntax than Java.
>
> The APIs are overly complex. And these APIs set a precedent for
> creating over-engineered super abstract solutions which unfortunately
> most people followed. I mean so we really have to look at everything
> as streams when a string will suffice 95% of the time? Or look at the
> java mail API. Could you make the simple use case of sending a text
> email any harder?
>
> Verbose? Yep. I'll agree there..... in making java language
> constructs simple, this resulted in quite a bit of verbosity (no
> properties/events/closures/operator overloading/etc). It was an over-
> reaction to C++'s complexity. Strip the language down to almost
> nothing....
>
> Not productive? I'll agree here too. Java the language is some of
> the problem.... why in 2010 can't I do: String blah = "Hello $
> {user.name}, your account ${account.number} is assigned.". why can't
> we use String blah = ' "no need to escape my "s! ' and other little
> things like that.... but these are just irritants really.
> The real problem isn't java so much as it is all the frameworks. Ant
> is an absolute abomination. XML is not a scripting language! How in
> God's name did people blindly go down this path of using xml for
> automation/builds? It has led to undebugable build hell, build.xml
> files calling build.xml files calling build.xml files. It has led to
> java trailing all other languages in automation.
>
> Other problem frameworks : JSF (xml hell), Axis (ever hear of dynamic
> binding? no, we must generate every stub - your time is not
> important), OSGi (reduce coupling by making it impossible to get
> anything done), Struts (could we have any more layers of indirection?)
>
> I still have't found a java web framework I like, so I use rails. But
> roo and play both look promising.... java needs more of this type of
> approach IMO
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 3:06 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<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
--
Kevin Wright
mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com
skype: kev.lee.wright
twitter: @thecoda
--
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.
