• houseofleft@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think a lot of it is “ceremony”, so it’s pretty common in java to:

    • create a get method for every object variable
    • create a set method for every object variable

    Then add on top that you have the increased code of type annotations PLUS the increased code of having to check if a value is null all the time because all types are nullable.

    None of that is hugely complicated compared to sone of the concepts in say Rust, but it does lead to a codebase with a lot more lines of code than you’d see in other similar languages.

    • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Before someone says it, I know a lot of this stuff doesn’t need to be done. I’m just giving it as examples for why Java has the rep it does.

      • WhyJiffie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        i still don’t understand. is it easier in python or JS to make getters and setters? with python my experience has been the opposite, with the decorator based solution in mind.
        or if the problem is that they exist, as an option to be used, why is that a problem? they can be implemented in any other language, and it can be useful.

        then yeah, you should check for nulls. just like for None’s in python, or if you have the correct type at all, because if it’s entirely different but ends up having a function or variable with the same name then who knows what happens.
        then in javascript besides null, you also have undefined and NaN!

        • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s not easier to do getters or setters but especially in python there’s a big culture of just not having getters or setters and accessing object variables directly. Which makes code bases smaller.

          Same with the types (although most languages for instance doesn’t consider None a valid value for an int type) Javascript has sooo many dynamic options, but I don’t see people checking much.

          I think it boils down to, java has a lot of ceremony, which is designed to improve stability. I think this makes code bases more complex, and gives it the reputation it has.

          • WhyJiffie
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think it boils down to, java has a lot of ceremony, which is designed to improve stability. I think this makes code bases more complex, and gives it the reputation it has.

            I’m not a java programmer, but I like it more because python and js projects are often very messy

            • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, that’s my experience too. I think once projects get to a certain size, you really reap the benefits of strong opinions, regardless if what those opinions are.

      • WhyJiffie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        i still don’t understand. is it easier in python or JS to make getters and setters? with python my experience has been the opposite, with the decorator based solution in mind.
        or if the problem is that they exist, as an option to be used, why is that a problem? they can be implemented in any other language, and it can be useful.

        then yeah, you should check for nulls. just like for None’s in python, or if you have the correct type at all, because if it’s entirely different but ends up having a function or variable with the same name then who knows what happens.
        then in javascript besides null, you also have undefined and NaN!