Let’s reinvent java bytecode but… different

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Java is disliked because it’s designed around flawed OOP principles developed in the 80s and 90s. The code easily turn into a mess if you adhere to these principles, because they’re flawed. If you avoid using these principles, you will still get a mess, because that’s not how Java is supposed to be used.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Java was such a fractal of stupid design choices in its early years, and a lot of it is still there. OOP except when it’s not (int vs Integer, [] arrays but also List et al), no unsigned number types, initially no way to do closures or pass methods around so everything had to be wrapped in super verbose bullshit, initially absolutely dogshit multiparadigm support and very noun-oriented, initally no generics either meaning everything’s an Object, when it did get generics they had to do type erasure for backwards compatibility, etc etc etc

      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also: everything is nullable. There are no safety guarantees to ensure you’ve done the necessary null checks. And if you miss your program will crash.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Oh yeah how did I forget the billion dollar mistake, definitely one of the worst misfeatures of Java

          • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I think having null is great in some cases where you need to represent missing value. It’s just that there’s no good way to know for sure if you need to do null checks or not. The only way around it is to do null checks everywhere, which no one wants to do because fuck that. Nowadays there’s Optional which solves some of this, but it was introduced way too late.

            If I were to redesign Java the first thing I would do is to add a nullable keyword or something.

            • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I think having null is great in some cases where you need to represent missing value.

              Option types or sum types would probably be a much less terrible choice for this, although I guess some sort of nullable keyword counts as a sum type

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Great article, thanks for the link! It makes good points that I hadn’t really considered; I’ve probably just been cranky about it because I’ve preferred heterogenous translations