|
| ▲ | lisbbb 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The main issue I have with Java is that the JVM was built to be portable and then we got a superior kind of portability using containers, which makes the JVM totally redundant and yet whenever I point that out, I get funny looks from people! I guess I have a lot of other problems with Java--jar hell, of course, but also the total inability for corporations to update their junk to newer versions of Java because so many libraries and products were never kept up with and then you get security people breathing down your neck to update the JVM which was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE in at least two situations I became involved with. We even tried to take over 3rd party libraries and rewrite/update them and ended up at very expensive dead ends with those efforts. Then, to top it all off, being accused of lacking the skill and experience to fix the problem! Those a-holes had no idea what THEY were talking about. But in corporate America, making intelligent and well-documented arguments is nothing. That's when I finally decided I needed to just stop working on anything related to Java entirely. So after about 15 years of that crap, I said no more. But I'm the under-skilled one. |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | So redundant that the WASM folks are redoing application servers using kubernetes with WASM containers. | |
| ▲ | imtringued 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You do realize that it's time to sunset a codebase if you can't find anyone to maintain it, right? "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE" means the code is dead. It's worthless garbage dragging the company down. There is no nothing else to do except shut it down. Software written in the last century isn't something like an irreplaceable artifact from an ancient technologically superior civilization that can never be replicated. If humanity's technological progress depended on impossibly rare events that never happen again, then humanity would miss the vast majority of them. It would be as if those events never existed in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | you realize the person you’re responding to didnt make this decision on what to use in their stack at all and this is likely what eventually happened anyway? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrkeen 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If only! Java gives you just enough non-objects to make pass-by-value or pass-by-reference something you need to be aware of, likewise with == and equals. |
|
| ▲ | epr 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Everything is an object in Python as well |
|
| ▲ | robertlagrant 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Literally everything is not an object - to whit: literals. And other things that weren't in your sentence. |
|
| ▲ | Spivak 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What do you mean by this? Because everything in Python is object, even classes and functions are objects. Do you just mean that Python lets you write functions not as part of a class? Because yeah there's the public static void main meme but static functions attached to a class is basically equivalent to Python free functions being attached to a module object. |
| |
| ▲ | lisbbb 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | OOP is not shoved down your throat with Python, though. With Python, I can choose what taxonomies deserve an OOP treatment and which do not. Spoiler: Almost nothing is a taxonomy of any remarkable nature. | | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 6 days ago | parent [-] | | you also can get away with completely ignoring the underlying oop semantics in tons of cases whereas java and similar languages dont give you that option |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If I call something a function does that mean I'm "doing functional programming" any time I use it? I use both C++ and Python but I wouldn't describe any of what I write as "object oriented". | | |
| ▲ | lisbbb 6 days ago | parent [-] | | No. Functional programming is quite a bit more involved than just writing "functions"--it is taking advantage of the fact that functions are first-class "objects" that can be passed as arguments to other functions, which allows for a far more intuitive and flexible form of programming. But FP is even more than that. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In Python everything is an object as well, unless you are still using Python 1.x, or the legacy mode in Python 2.x. |
|
| ▲ | throwawaymaths 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| that's why i said "to a certain extent" for python!! |
