The Next Step for Generics

Re:The Next Step for Generics by throwaway894345 on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @10:45PM (#23547148)

Go is quite a lot different than Java. Go has held to its promise of simplicity and consistency remarkably well. No need to learn groovy to configure Gradle to build your application; just use ‘go build’. No need to learn javadoc or configure your CI pipeline to build and deploy documentation packages. No need to figure out how to statically link your code, it’s the default. No need to figure out how to compile your code ahead of time, it’s the default. No need to figure out how to tune your GC for low latency and low memory usage, it’s the default. Plus Go has value types; Java is maybe going to get them, but they’ll never be idiomatic. On top of all of this are the misfeatures and antipatterns that are pervasive in Java but which don’t exist in ago—things like inheritance, objects, and the “you just want a banana, but the banana has a reference to the gorilla holding it and the whole damn jungle” design pattern. I know, I know “that’s just bad design and you can have that in any language!”—true in theory, but Go doesn’t have this in practice. Nor gratuitous inheritance hierarchies or anything else. And while Java folks don’t have to use those patterns/features if they don’t want to, the must still interface with them because their coworkers probably write code like that and if not your coworkers’ code, then the dependency library and even the standard library.

Go is a dramatically nicer programming experience than Java. There are some benefits in Java however: sometimes JIT is nice and Go has no analog to Spring. But these are very circumstantial benefits and not good tradeoffs in the general case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Next Step for Generics by throwaway8941 on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @02:00AM (#23548263)

Most of the things you listed are not a problem in C#. And you don't have to be tied deeply to Microsoft to use it these days — I develop stuff full-time on top of .NET Core under Linux (and host it on Linux).

>No need to learn groovy to configure Gradle to build your application

I rarely have to configure msbuild, mostly to do some relatively advanced stuff like auto-installing npm dependencies for an SPA.

>No need to learn javadoc

Just use

    /** */

>No need to figure out how to statically link your code

You can build pseudo-statically linked executables by adding one line to .csproj (which builds a single executable file, but it's really a self-extracting archive), and real static linking is in the works. I have no need for it personally though.

>how to compile your code ahead of time

Same thing — AOT compilation is one configuration line away. You don't need it very much though, as the CLR is very performant these days and beats Go in most benchmarks:

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

>No need to figure out how to tune your GC for low latency and low memory usage

I would argue CLR's GC is ahead of Go's GC at least for latency. Memory usage, not so much, but damn, look at the execution times above. It depends on your priorities I guess.

>Plus Go has value types

C# has had them since before Go was a thing. Unlike Java, it also has real structs, which you can configure the alignment of, and map a raw chunk of memory to them (which you received from a COM port, for example). This came in handy more often than I care to remember.

As for your forest/banana analogy, I'd argue it's never been as bad in .NET world as it's been in Java world. I have personally never found anything similar to the insane class hierarchies they have in Spring.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Next Step for Generics by pjmlp on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @08:33AM (#23550596)

> I have personally never found anything similar to the insane class hierarchies they have in Spring.

Try to do something with stuff like XAML Workflows, Bizztalk, WCF, SharePoint, or MVVM. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Next Step for Generics by zmmmmm on Thursday June 18, 2020 @01:00AM (#23559934)

I think people get causation and correlation a bit confused here ... Java code is like it is not just because of it's nature as a language but because a gigantic number of huge corporations use it. And they have bajillions of dollars to pay developers to figure out a gradle build, or navigate a typ e hierachy etc. That's why equivalents of Spring etc., have appeared for .Net etc.

Btw, did you know the default Gradle configuration for compiling a Java app is literally 1 line?

    apply plugin: 'java'

I'm not that much a fan of Gradle (too much magic), but it's one of the least verbose and easiest to figure out parts of working with java.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Next Step for Generics by logeprog on Thursday June 18, 2020 @02:30AM (#23560360)

Having spent way too much years in java I’d have to say that the build systems are really the weakest part of java. We have „maven“ (wtf) and „gradle“ (powerful but yikes) oh and “ant” (dead now)

Wrt gradle: While it’s super easy to get started, any slight modification is a major pain.

Note to other tooling guys for other languages:

- I don’t want to write in a new language just for my build system

- I don’t want freaking xml hell like maven

And don’t get me even started with Maven as a package manager. But to be honest... it’s at least better than NPM :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Next Step for Generics by zmmmmm on Friday June 19, 2020 @12:01AM (#23570840)

So I assume you don't like many of the popular build tools at all - Make, bazel, etc all define a custom DSL effectively. At least Groovy or Kotlin are actual languages you can learn and use for other things, not something that has no alternative purpose so is completely wasted. And their syntax is very close to Java so you have a head start on learning it.

In general the concept of a "cross platform" build tool and "not having to learn another language" are at odds with each other, for anybody who isn't lucky enough to already work in the language the build tool is written in.

[ Parent | on HN ]