[LoSboccacc]

if you have to work with a framework of corporate pick in java it usually turns into an ugly mess really fast because many of them came from a decade of crazy soft coders which decided to put everything in xml whether it made sense or not

otherwise it's a very good language if you get to pick which libraries to work with, has some of the best tooling out there and has matured enough to let dev do what they need to do (like having first citizen memory mapped files, heck, it did non blocking i/o before it was cool and still people think node is radically different because of it)

[erokar]

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.

[LoSboccacc]

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

}