[groovy2shoes]

While I agree that some people hate Java because of hearsay, many people do have good reasons -- reasons that often have little to do with Java as a language and much more to do with the Java ecosystem. Oh, the horrors I've seen in Java codebases!

[oddthink]

I was just talking with a coworker about this. We agreed that much of our existing C++ code could have been written in Java without harm (we're doing compute-heavy finance, but not fluid simulation), and that would let us skip a whole lot of infrastructure pain. The only uncertainty was how easy it would be to make a Java-based Excel plug-in, but Java on Windows seemed a smaller evil than C# on Linux.

F# is interesting, Scala is interesting, and we both wondered what it would be like to really try ocaml for real. But Java's just pretty solid. It's not exciting, but it's quality engineering. It makes some questionable trade-offs, but it seems to provoke more hate than it deserves.

Of course, we then rolled our eyes about all the crazy Java stuff we've seen, with XML-everywhere, FactoryFactories, and gratuitous IoC.

That started me wondering: what is it about Java that encourages the craziness? My theory is that it's a combination of garbage collection and lack of easy blocks/anonymous functions. Garbage collection lets you get away with things that you'd never try in C++, and lack of blocks means you're stuck with a pretty limited API, so you end up inventing extra-language channels for information.

Note: I intentionally didn't demand closures. I think the original blocks in Smalltalk weren't closures, but they were still useful for things like "monkeys select: [:m | m throwsPoop]". I'm not sure if this is really enough; closures make some things a lot easier.

[cageface]

That started me wondering: what is it about Java that encourages the craziness?

It doesn't hurt when you're trying to rack up a lot of billable errors and keep clients dependent on you.

[tetha]

I think the lack of higher order functions is a huge part. If you don't have built in higher order functions, you have to add 1 interface per function taking a higher order function and 1 class per different call. From there on, you have to manage all those extra classes and interfaces somehow, which easily spawns more classes you wouldn't need otherwise.

These resulting structures then end up being factories (You could pass the object creation function), command objects (you could have a function to call instead of a command to pass back) and so on.

[pjmlp]

You can see horrors in any language.

The problem is called lack of skills, not the language.

[groovy2shoes]

Was my post too long for you? You must have missed this part: "reasons that often have little to do with Java as a language".

[pjmlp]

I've saw it, but the remark about the ecosystem still reflects over the language, hence my post.

[groovy2shoes]

My point isn't that there's something intrinsic to Java that leads to nightmarish codebases, but there must be something associated with the Java brand name that leads to it. I haven't seen such a large percentage of this lack of skill affiliated with any other language (granted, I haven't spent much time working with, e.g., VB or PHP codebases).

I don't know what it is about Java that seems to encourage the mess, but there is something.

[pjmlp]

You can see this in any enterprise code base.

I have seen lots of awful code, when you combine software design done by out of touch architects, with lousy enterprise coders, regardless of the chosen language.