Common Misconceptions About Java
Common Misconceptions About Java
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
Atomist automates your software deliver experience. It's how modern teams deliver modern software.
Java is the most widely used language in the world (), and everyone has an opinion about it. Due to it being mainstream, it is usually mocked, and sometimes rightly so, but sometimes the criticism just doesn’t touch reality. I’ll try to explain my favorite 5 misconceptions about Java.
- Java is slow – that might have been true for Java 1.0, and initially may sounds logical, since java is not compiled to binary, but to bytecode, which is in turn interpreted. However, modern versions of the JVM are very, very optimized (JVM optimizations is a topic worth not just an article, but a whole book) and this is no longer remotely true. As noted here, Java is even on-par with C++ in some cases. And it is certainly not a good idea to make a joke about Java being slow if you are a Ruby or PHP developer.
- Java is too verbose – here we need to split the language from the SDK and from other libraries.
- There is some verbosity in the JDK (e.g. java.io), which is: 1. easily overcome with de-facto standard libraries like guava 2. a good thing
- As for language verbosity, the only reasonable point were anonymous classes. Which are no longer an issue in Java 8 with the the functional additions. Getters and setters,
Foo foo = new Foo()instead of using
val– that is (possibly) boilerplate, but it’s not verbose – it doesn’t add conceptual weight to the code. It doesn’t take more time to write, read or understand.
- Other libraries – it is indeed pretty scary to see a class like
AbstractCommonAsyncFacadeFactoryManagerImpl. But that has nothing to do with Java. It can be argued that sometimes these long names make sense, it can also be argued that they are as complex because the underlying abstraction is unnecessarily complicated, but either way, it is a design decision taken per-library, and nothing that the language or the SDK impose per-se. It is common to see overengineered stuff, but Java in no way pushes you in that direction – stuff can be done in a simple way with any language. You can certainly have
AbstractCommonAsyncFacadeFactoryManagerImplin Ruby, just there wasn’t a stupid architect that thought it’s a good idea and who uses Ruby. If “big, serious, heavy” companies were using Ruby, I bet we’d see the same.
- Enterprise Java frameworks are bloatware – that was certainly true back in 2002 when EJB 2 was in use (or “has been”, I’m too young to remember). And there are still some overengineered and bloated application servers that you don’t really need. The fact that people are using them is their own problem. You can have a perfectly nice, readable, easy to configure and deploy web application with a framework like Spring, Guice or even CDI; with a web framework like Spring-MVC, Play, Wicket, and even the latest JSF. Or even without any framework, if you feel like you don’t want to reuse the evolved-through-real-world-use frameworks. You can have an application using a message queue, a NoSQL and a SQL database, Amazon S3 file storage, and whatnot, without any accidental complexity. It’s true that people still like to overeingineer stuff, and add a couple of layers where they are not needed, but the fact that frameworks give you this ability doesn’t mean they make you do it. For example, here’s an application that crawls government documents, indexes them, and provides a UI for searching and subscribing. Sounds sort-of simple, and it is. It is written in Scala (in a very java way), but uses only java frameworks – spring, spring-mvc, lucene, jackson, guava. I guess you can start maintaining pretty fast, because it is straightforward.
- You can’t prototype quickly with Java – this is sort-of related to the previous point – it is assumed that working with Java is slow, and that’s why if you are a startup, or a weekend/hackathon project, you should use Ruby (with Rails), Python, Node JS or anything else that allows you to quickly prototype, to save & refresh, to painlessly iterate. Well, that is simply not true, and I don’t know even where it comes from. Maybe from the fact that big companies with heavy processes use Java, and so making a java app is taking more time. And Save-and-Refresh might look daunting to a beginner, but anyone who has programmed in Java (for the web) for a while, has to know a way to automate that (otherwise he’s a n00b, right?). I’ve summarized the possible approaches, and all of them are mostly OK. Another example here (which may be used as an example for the above point as well) – I made did this project for verifying secure password storage of websites within a weekend + 1 day to fix stuff in the evening. Including the security research. Spring-MVC, JSP templates, MongoDB. Again – quick and easy.
You may argue that I’m able to write nice and simple java applications quickly because I have a lot of experience, I know precisely which tools to use (and which not) and that I’m of some rare breed of developers with common sense. And while I’ll be flattered by that, I am no different than the good Ruby developer or the Python guru you may be. It’s just that java is too widespread to have only good developers and tools.
if so many people were using other language, then probably the same amount of crappy code would’ve been generated. (And PHP is already way ahead even with less usage).
I’m the last person not to laugh on jokes about Java, and it certainly isn’t the silver bullet language, but I’d be happier if people had less misconceptions either because of anecdotal evidence, or due to previous bad experience a-la “I hate Java since my previous company where the project was very bloated”. Not only because I don’t like people being biased, but because you may start your next project with a language that will not work, just because you’ve heard “Java is bad”.
Published at DZone with permission of Bozhidar Bozhanov , DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.