Why is Java Considered Un-Cool?

jg21 writes "After the Slashdot discussion on Paul Graham's 'Great Hackers' essay, it had to happen. Java developers have taken umbrage at Graham's assertion that "Of all the great programmers I can think of, I know of only one who would voluntarily program in Java. And of all the great programmers I can think of who don't work for Sun, on Java, I know of zero." Now in JDJ Sachin Hejip pinpoints the Top Reasons Why Java is Considered Un-Cool and to tries to debunk them. He levels some of the blame at the Java compiler for "too much chaperoning" and speculates that Java fails the geek test precisely because "it's such a language-for-the-masses." But isn't he missing the point? Enterprise-grade apps and "coolness" may be inapproriate bedfellows. Besides, does any language offer both?"

Comments

Java Basher vs. Java Apologist

[RAMMS EIN]

I think the author could have done a much better job at debunking those myths. I, for one, am not convinced. Some snippets:

``you cannot really make your friends go ga-ga at amazingly brief programming constructs.''

Right. When you have to write BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)), that indeed doesn't give a strong sense of brevity. Nor does public static void main(String argv[]).

``Java has been considered slow for ages.''

And it's still slow. Each time a new release comes out, people get into the debate of Java is slow vs. you moron did you actually test that? Well, after 1.4 I have given up on testing. It's slower than unoptimized C for all programs I have tested with. Probably this is because I use the wrong kind of tests (ranging from simple loops and calculations to simple chat servers and clients), but just the fact that there are such wrong programs tells something, IMO. And startup time and memory usage continue to amaze me.

``Swing is a brilliant, although hard to learn, API.''

If it's hard to learn, what makes it brilliant? Certainly not its good performance or integration with the host environment. Themability and portability are good, but other toolkits have these, too.

``Java is a strongly typed language therefore you have to tell the compiler exactly what you intend to use.''

That's a fallacy. ML is also strongly typed, yet you don't have to tell the compiler the type you want to use.

``Java is popular. Anything that is popular has lost its elite status and therefore is not cool.''

You mean like Linux, Apache, Perl, PHP, gcc, etc. etc. etc. etc.?

Actually, now that I have read the full article, I don't think the author was trying to debunk any myths at all. More just summing up the points, so that those who want to defend/attack Java know where the battle is.

Depends ...

[gstoddart]

In particular, Graham claims that terser languages are more powerful , because studies have shown that coders churn out a pretty constant number of lines per day, regardless of the programming language. Java is anything but terse.

In my experience (which isn't huge with Java, but I've used it for commercial work), one of the things I liked most about Java was that it actually tended to save me lines of code.

Oh, sure it's got an explicit full-on syntax, but I'm comfortable with that. What I was most impressed with was there was a vast amount of standard data types and APIs available to accomplish a very huge amount of stuff. Looking at C++ and the like, the APIs are anything but cross-platform. (Any helpful links to a good C++ API (not GUI toolkits) which is both POSIX and Windows might make me use that some more.)

For the type of code I was writing at the time (oddly enough, server side stuff behind a web front-end, no GUI) I found I could always find a standard routine to do what in the past I've had to implement from scratch.

I also specifically loved the good type checking and the like. I want that from my languages.

I'm actually planning on using it for some projects I want to work on for myself.

Would I say it's the perfect language? Nope. Would I claim it has all of the shiniest language features? Nope. Do I, as an old-school C-coder, think it's a straight-forward API rich language that I can get stuff done in? Damned straight!

Since I don't grok functional-programming and I despise languages with really wierd syntax and the like, for me, Java is like the Toyota Camry of languages. For the way I use it, it's fine.

Re:the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

It is good that you don't want to work for hte big software shops, as it would never happen. Let me give you a manager's persepctive on why "cool hackers" are not desireable as hires; you just listed all the reasons why I would never, ever hire you in a million years to work on my major financial system.

1. You think you are too smart to work from a spec. Implementing a spec does not leave no room for creative solutions to problems. It just guarantees that you won't be a typical "midnight cowboy" loner who programs an 31337 solution that does not actually meet the requirements of the users. I will take someone who can solidly do the work I need done over a genius who gives me a creative app that fails to implement the spec any day of the week. And I will have more confindence in the B coder who I know is not a prima donna.
2. You look down on the concepts of testing and integration. Imagine 40% of financial derivative deals in the world financial market suddenly unable to be valued and executed for a day, a week, a month - that is what happens if my system goes down. If an appliation outage means potential damage to the company and a noticeable impact to the world financial market, testing is not just a good idea. It is everything. Hell, yeah, I manage the hell out of my team. I don't sit at their desks and micromanage them, though, and you seem to think that the former implies the latter. I just make damned sure that everything we do is extremely well-tested, lest we cost the bank millions of dollars with a simple error.
3. You actually think "cool" matters. There are places where this is true, such as perhaps game companies. But my own time in the candyland of the late 90s boom showed me that coolness is not nearly as important as delivery and reliability. You may deliver good, cool code, but as a manager I am not at all sure I can rely on you unless I coddle you and keep you happy.
4.You have disdain for your potential teammates. I will never hire an "A" programmer if that means getting someone with your attitude. Instead I will hire what you call "B" programmers (many of them extremely bright people at the top of their field). I will treat them with respect and empower them to make their own decisions as much as possible. And day to day I will worry much less about them than you because you come off as an arrogant ass who thinks highly of himself and cannot work with others.

Enjoy your work on the "big" apps with the other A programmers. Those of us who build software that keeps the world running have other things to do.