James Watson
Posts: 2024
Nickname: watson
Registered: Sep, 2005
|
|
Re: Hybridizing Java
|
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 8:12 AM
|
|
> Similarly, there's an argument that says Java's verbosity > (compared to Ruby, Scala, etc) isn't a problem, because > Eclipse can boilerplate code for you. That never really > cut it for me. Being able to define a 'bean' in Scala > source as simply as 'class Person(name: String, age: int, > etc)' gives me a warm feeling inside.
I think the verbosity argument is a red-herring personally. The problem I have with Java (really the way Java is used) is that the semantics of the language do not support the way people are using Java. Verbosity isn't insignificant but the semantics have a much deeper impact on productivity and effectiveness.
Everything today in Java is about beans. But when you look at the language, it isn't really built for beans. I can go into more detail if you wish, but Spring, Hibernate, EJB3, Struts, AOP frameworks, etc. are mainly necessitated by the fact that beans are not supported by the semantics of the language.
What really confuses me is that when someone suggests using a dynamic language with Java (Groovy, Jython, JRuby) a common response is something to the effect of 'I don't want my code spread across different languages/platforms' but often these same people will extol the virtues of Spring or AOP as if the configuration associated with these tools are not an important part of the application.
|
|