6 ms·

I think it is. If people haven't learnt yet that the single most important skill you need as a programmer is being able to read any code, in any language, and t

I think it is. If people haven't learnt yet that the single most important skill you need as a programmer is being able to read any code, in any language, and take a good guess at what it does, be able to hold abstract programming concepts in your head, and match them up to random code listings you have never seen before.... Before you can write code, you need to know how to read it.

famousactress 15y ago
I'm sure no one is disagreeing with the importance of knowing how to read code. I'm just saying that Java makes it harder than it needs to be. If your argument is that that's a good thing, then where does that argument end? (Probably with Perl, I guess...) ...sorry Perl guys. Couldn't resist.
- beagle3 15y ago
  You want to have a look at the APL / J / K family, where functions like |/0(0|+)\ that compute the maximum-consecutive-sum (honest!) are the norm.
- rjbond3rd 15y ago
  Maybe you couldn't resist because you're nostalgic? Read-only Perl went out with the 1990's, unless you're talking about golf (which FYI is done for the challenge of it - it's not for production).
mattmanser 15y ago
I recently had the great displeasure of working on a 20,000 odd line class. You cannot keep 20,000 lines in your head, it's an extreme challenge. Each method only had tiny differences but spotting them, as pivo's original comment argues, is a total nightmare. Refactoring brought it in at 1,500 lines. Now you can glance at any method and see the actual difference to the default that they do. Are you seriously suggesting there's little difference between a programming language that encourages 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross compared to a concise 1,500 line program. That there's not a massive mental overhead to reading through what is essentially a book compared to a short essay? As that's what's being discussed, but you don't seem to get it. There's reading code, and there's reading pointless code.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  Java does no such thing as "encourages 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross". Bad programmers do. If you're creating several methods that only differ a little bit, you're doing something stupid. In any language. Bad programmers create bad code. The language is totally irrelevant.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    It's really not irrelevant. There's a reason that people aren't programming in COBOL or BASIC.
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      Yes, the reason is the runtimes for them suck, or aren't needed. If there was a decent runtime for BASIC or COBOL, which gave real world advantages over everything else, I'd switch to BASIC or COBOL in a heart beat. I'm a programmer. The language I use is pretty irrelevant. If It starts looking ugly, I'd just write a cross compiler. This is not rocket science.
- kaffiene 15y ago
  That's a huge strawman! I've seen utter rubbish written in C++ but I don't go around claiming that C++ is broken on that basis. What you are claiming is utterly invalid. You say that you refactored it to 1500 lines from 20,000. Clearly it was written badly in the first place. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some other language where a bad programmer can't write bad code? Java does NOT 'encourage 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross compared to a concise 1,500 line program'. That's an outrageous strawman argument.

famousactress 15y ago

I'm sure no one is disagreeing with the importance of knowing how to read code. I'm just saying that Java makes it harder than it needs to be. If your argument is that that's a good thing, then where does that argument end? (Probably with Perl, I guess...) ...sorry Perl guys. Couldn't resist.

beagle3 15y ago
You want to have a look at the APL / J / K family, where functions like |/0(0|+)\ that compute the maximum-consecutive-sum (honest!) are the norm.
rjbond3rd 15y ago
Maybe you couldn't resist because you're nostalgic? Read-only Perl went out with the 1990's, unless you're talking about golf (which FYI is done for the challenge of it - it's not for production).

mattmanser 15y ago

I recently had the great displeasure of working on a 20,000 odd line class. You cannot keep 20,000 lines in your head, it's an extreme challenge. Each method only had tiny differences but spotting them, as pivo's original comment argues, is a total nightmare. Refactoring brought it in at 1,500 lines. Now you can glance at any method and see the actual difference to the default that they do. Are you seriously suggesting there's little difference between a programming language that encourages 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross compared to a concise 1,500 line program. That there's not a massive mental overhead to reading through what is essentially a book compared to a short essay? As that's what's being discussed, but you don't seem to get it. There's reading code, and there's reading pointless code.

speckledjim 15y ago
Java does no such thing as "encourages 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross". Bad programmers do. If you're creating several methods that only differ a little bit, you're doing something stupid. In any language. Bad programmers create bad code. The language is totally irrelevant.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmanser 15y ago
  It's really not irrelevant. There's a reason that people aren't programming in COBOL or BASIC.
  - speckledjim 15y ago
    Yes, the reason is the runtimes for them suck, or aren't needed. If there was a decent runtime for BASIC or COBOL, which gave real world advantages over everything else, I'd switch to BASIC or COBOL in a heart beat. I'm a programmer. The language I use is pretty irrelevant. If It starts looking ugly, I'd just write a cross compiler. This is not rocket science.
kaffiene 15y ago
That's a huge strawman! I've seen utter rubbish written in C++ but I don't go around claiming that C++ is broken on that basis. What you are claiming is utterly invalid. You say that you refactored it to 1500 lines from 20,000. Clearly it was written badly in the first place. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some other language where a bad programmer can't write bad code? Java does NOT 'encourage 20,000 line behemoths filled with dross compared to a concise 1,500 line program'. That's an outrageous strawman argument.