Java has many abstractions that can be beneficial in certain circumstances. However, it forces a design principle that may not work best in every situation.

I.e. inheritance can be both unnatural for the programmer to think in, and is not representative of how data is stored and manipulated on a computer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't have to use inheritance with Java. In fact, in most cases it's better that you don't. Practically all of the Java standard library doesn't require the use of inheritance, same with most modern libraries.

On the contrary, I think inheritance is a very natural way to think. However, that doesn't translate into readable and easy to maintain code in the vast majority of the cases.

I am not sure what you mean by how it's stored or manipulated on a computer. A garbage collected language like Java manages the memory for you. It doesn't really care if your code is using inheritance or not. And unless you're trying to squeeze the last drops of performance out of your code, the memory layout shouldn't be on your mind.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Composition + Interfaces is love

[–] Von_Broheim 2 points 1 year ago

People hating on Java because "inheritance" usually don't know the difference between inheritance and polymorphism. Stuff like composition and dependency inversion is black magic to them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

We’re gate-keeping the most mainstream programming language now? Next you’ll say English isn’t a real language because it doesn’t have a native verb tense to express hearsay.

[–] kaba0 1 points 1 year ago

And it is not forced at all. Noone holds a gun to your head to write extends. “Favor composition over inheritance” has been said as a mantra for at least a decade

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Java is, of course, Turing Complete™️ but when you have to hide all the guns and knives in jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe something is clearly wrong.

[–] LeFantome 1 points 1 year ago

I do not like Java but this is a strange argument. The people that invented Java felt that most of the C language should be wrapped in unsafe.

Opinions can vary but saying Java is not a real language is evidence free name calling. One could just as easily say that any language that does not allow you to differentiate between safe and unsafe baheviour is incomplete and not a “real” language. It is not just the Java and C# people that may say this. As a C fan, I am sure you have heard Rust people scoff at C as a legacy language that was fine for its day but clearly outclassed now that the “real” languages have arrived. Are you any more correct than they are?

[–] kaba0 1 points 1 year ago

Memory is an implementation detail. You are interested in solving problems, not pushing bytes around, unless that is the problem itself. In 99% of the cases though, you don’t need guns and knives, it’s not a US. school (sorry)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice ATM machine.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Smhmh my head