Java's Cover (2001)

Re:Java's Cover (2001) by erokar on Friday December 18, 2015 @07:21PM (#10761956)

Agreed, enterprisy patterns haven't helped Java. But sorry, no, I do not think it's a good language. It doesn't really do anything well, it's all luke warm and compelcted. It insists on types, but they have no power and are primarlily a typing (sic.) and visual nuisance. It's supposed to be object oriented, but it has primitive types for performance reasons that appear anachronistic today. Yet it insists on everything being a class and thus prohibits simpler data structures. Its support for functional programming is cumbersome and late to the game. Etc.

There are so many better alternatives on the JVM now — Coljure, Kotlin, Scala.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java's Cover (2001) by LoSboccacc on Saturday December 19, 2015 @04:40AM (#10763141)

I agree on types and functional implementation being sucky, but simpler datatype are definitely in, just need some imagination

a struct, by any other name:

public class Point {

   public int x,y;

}

you can even do binary packed stuff with some fantasy

public class PackedRGBA{

   private long v;

   //following getters and setter bit shifting

}

[ Parent | on HN ]