Java is the best language EVER

OF ALL TIME.

Prove to me, in a civil and politeyea right way why you disagree and maybe I'll learn something else.

i am autistic, please rape my anus.

No closures/function pointers, verbosity, you have to learn overly fragmented libraries to do anything serious, broken imports requiring unique names across namespaces, no list initializers.

>>2
yea right

>>3
What language do YOU use then?

>>5
I use english, but you may call me JEWS.

>>2
i am suffering from scientism please cure me ;__;

Ada, stronger typing, not forced to use OO, compiles to platform
/thread

>>7
cure yourself, with my anus.

Use JAVA, get sued by Oracle

It looks fucking ugly.

>>11
You must be confusing Java with C or C++ or Python or LISP or Conjure

>>11
You must be confusing Java with C or C++ or Python or LISP or Clojure

>>3
Not to mention jizz all in the way of non-blocking I/O.
You have to create multiple threads two problems (and therefore multiple classes) simply to get around this disastrous lack of basic functionality.

Shame, otherwise you could UNBLOCK MY ANUS

>>14
I recommend EX-LAX

>>3

No closures/function pointers, verbosity
Use C# if you want these things.  New Java features have to be uncontroversial.  Java follows KISS, feature creep=bad.

you have to learn overly fragmented libraries to do anything serious
Java has one of the biggest standard libraries out there, you're an idiot.

broken imports requiring unique names across namespaces,
I guess when you've only programed toy things you don't learn how packages work.

no list initializers.
see 1

>>14
You have to create multiple threads (and therefore multiple classes)

Threading in no way requires multiple classes in java you're an idiot.  A simple google search would show you everything in your post is wrong. Also you're an idiot.

>>16
Java follows KISS, feature creep=bad.
Because first-class functions are a sign of feature creep, huh?

Java follows KISS, feature creep=bad.
It sure followed that philosophy well.

I assumed >>1-san was just a lazy troll, but apparently he was serious and that is sad.

>>20
Sad is how incompetent programmers will make ignorant criticisms of one of the few languages they can learn and be productive with(and if they shower, maybe even get a job).

>>3
you have to learn overly fragmented libraries to do anything serious
You have to learn just as many things in a number of other languages, the difference being they typically just dump this stuff onto your basic application in bulk.  You'll be lucky to be able to make specific calls, e.g., std::string and System.out.println, rather than having to provide a whole resource when you only need a small feature from it.

>>16
Well, there are notes that Java 7 may implement a more formal closure...  Also, Java does not actually promote KISS but, rather, LEGO.  That is to say "We're not giving you standard command line input out of the box, but, see, you have all the parts to build one to suit your requirements."  That's actually a very practical approach from a certain perspective; however, there is still enough concealed redundancy amongst these parts (besides standard input, have you ever looked into some of the complicated outputting methods Java has to offer? Java even has a printf method).  And, as far as verbosity is concerned:
public static BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
As far as "function pointers" go, don't get me started on Java method reflection capabilities.  While they don't adequately substitute for function pointers, it is possible to pull some similar tricks with references.  Of course, most standard Java applications will rarely ever need to use this.

>>17
He might have mistakenly said "class" when he meant "object."  On the other hand, a notorious, almost mythic, practice of poor Java programming is the impetus to create new classes at the drop of a hat.

And, as far as verbosity is concerned:
public static BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));

While java has an element of verbosity, this claim is always overblown and backed up by awful coding from idiots.
Scanner sc=new Scanner(System.in);

Arguments of the form "<language X> is not like <language Y>, therefore <language x> sucks" are retarded.

I'm done with you idiots, its blindingly obvious that you guys aren't qualified to talk about java.  Go back to fa/g/gots.

awful coding from idiots
You're calling a valid input stream access declaration "awful coding?"  Here I was just extolling logic behind a language that implements brick-laying construction tendencies for objects and then pointing out that verbosity necessarily must exist in such a language, at least in the initializations.
If I were going to go into an example of excessive Java verbosity, I would have posted a method reflection example (but, as I said, don't get me started on that).

>>23
The mere fact that http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/apidocs/org/apache/xmlrpc/server/RequestProcessorFactoryFactory.RequestSpecificProcessorFactoryFactory.html exists is enough to convince me I don't ever want to deal with Java programmers.

>>25
Wow, that's just--wow.
What does it do?

>>26
It's a factory for factories for processors specific to requests. Can't you read?

>>25
why would you judge a language by a 3rd party library?

>>25
Haha oh wow. So much content, so little useful information.

>>28
Names are like that are considered ``good" by Java monkeys.

>>27
ohyou.txt

>>28
The average class name in the Java standard library (just class name, without the package hierarchy) is eighteen characters long. FormatFlagsConversionMismatchException (in java.util), for example, has as many characters as >>25's example.

>>32
eighteen characters long
sauce? I believe you, I just want a reference I can give to people when they say Java is not verbose.

>>30
Not to mention the pure, unadulterated embodiment of anti-pattern designs that class embodies.

I don't think so, tim

>>35
I think so, Jim.

>>32
Protip: verbose error messages are a good thing.

>>37
Addendum: as long as they are useful, not like c++'s template error garbage

>>37
If you lack basic reading comprehension skills, no amount of verbosity is going to help you.

>>39
If you lack basic communication skills, you should stop posting.

>>1
It's interpreted and garbage collected.
40 posts.
Wow.

interpreted
The JVM has had JIT for how many years now?

>>42
For the same number of years that JIT has been bullshit, roughly.


LOST
L O S T
L  O  S  T
L   O   S   T
L    O    S    T
L     O     S     T

>>40-45
Saging a thread that it already at the top.
Oh wow.

>>44
LOST
L O S T
L  O  S  T
L   O   S   T
L    O    S    T
L     O     S     T
L    O    S    T
L   O   S   T
L  O  S  T
L O S T
LOST

>>45
Terrible!

_L ^O S _T

_{L O S T L O S T L O S T}

I don't see why we need to have this discussion over a language that supports no more than a single programming paradigm and doesn't even do that very well.

Here's a pretty good summary someone posted over three years ago: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1181689161/11

>>50
I don't see why we need to have this discussion
... ever.  If you've ever used Java and you've ever learned a real programming language to compare it to, you don't need to ask anyone else why Java sucks.

If Java is all you've ever learned, and all you want to do is write toys that run inside a browser, then Java is super fucking neat-o and you should continue using it.

>>51
I've been using C for five-six years longer than Java and I still don't hate Java.

>>52
You've been using C for five-six years?

Java was an attempt at making a better Sepples, and it succeeded, for the most part. It's just that that's a pathetically low bar to judge anything by.

Why does everyone on this board have to be an asshole all the time? You know life's too short to measure your dick all the time and be pissed off.

>>55
Life is too short to pussyfoot around incompetence, too.

>>55,56
Civility and politeness are extremely useful tools in communication with people who are more wrong than right, but of very little use with people who are vastly more right than wrong. This counter-intuitive observation comes directly from the fact that we simply do not need civil and polite ways of telling people that they are right about something. So the people who have most to gain from civility and politeness are people who know they are and intend to /stay/ wrong while they force everybody else hold their tongues.

>>53
No no, sorry, I should have been more specific.
I've been programming for about ten years.  Ten accumulative years with C, less than ten with other languages, and it has been five-six years since I started using Java.

>>57
That is counterproductive.

Java was an attempt at making a better Sepples, and it succeeded, for the most part.

Java's only similarity to C++ is the syntax. Under the hood Java is a completely different animal, in fact its almost a polar opposite to C++. Java is a garbage collected VM language. If Java had dynamic typing and data types as objects, then it would be a scripting language like Python or Ruby. But it compromised in that area by using static typing and primitive data types to gain speed. So you end up with a language that only excels at large scale enterprise infrastructure due to its ability to handle large volumes of data with its typing correctness and uniform OO. It has completely kicked out C, C++ and VB's use in that area, and since business is one of the largest users of software, thats where all the "Java is an improvement over from C++" talk comes from

>>59
Well said.  This thread has been closed, etc, etc.

>>59
Ugh. I just imagined having to choose either VB or Java for the rest of my life.

>>61
I'd choose Java and Greenspun it.

Java is good for domain-specific solutions, but it doesn't adequately address the issue of multiple inheritance out of the box.

>>63
very funny t-rex

>>53 that means he has been using it for like minus one year