Fuck Java.

So you're anal about java?

Pretty sure Ritchie have never said anything remotely close to that.

Also, original sauce: http://bash.org/?338364

I'll do some Java in your baba. If you know what I mean.
😎

Not sure if that is really a criticism of Java or a complement ;)

Fair point though... how did Java become popular? I wouldn't develop in it for double my wages.

The question is: "why do you think that Java is bad?". I would not change to another language and I've tried many.

@shasha just not a fan of taking out the garbage. Why not be tidy with memory as you use it? Also yes some tasks may be quicker with JVM but overall it is a massive pile of slower bloat. I would never pick java over C.

How many times does this need to be reposted. Seriously.

@iguana until the sun goes out 😂

I think that C has its place and Java has its place and those are separate places. Generally, at least.

@w0ble thanks! :)

@rusty-hacker you get a ++

@SirMiguel was that a pun?

@iguana I honestly didn't know it was posted before. My bad.

Anal sex is good. Your point?

@jonjo I'm sorry but that's not an answer. If you won't pick Java then why do you think it is a problem at all? If you live in Africa and you hate snow why talking sh*t about Canada?

@shasha why do you think this app is called devRANT? 😀 Also also I would use nodejs,Python,c++ and C# over Java any day

@shasha because Java is just a terribly designed language.

- Still no type-inference (leads to overly long lines)
- Object-Orientation is enforced on the user
- Inconsistent naming (String, int, character)
- String equality operator doesn't actually check for string equality

And the list goes on

@Krokoklemme
- no need for it, since the IDE does the Job
- bullshit. Classes begin with an uppercase letter, primitive data types with a lowercase letter.
- yeah since == operator checks the adresses instead. Calling .compare is not that hard

You should really learn more about stuff before crying about it.

@ctwx I do know the Java conventions and I know why they are the way they are, but that doesn't make it any better.

Type-inference *does* lead to redundant typing, there's no need to explicitly mention the same type twice in the same statement.

And I wasn't referring to casing (not only), but to the naming in general. Why are the primitives 'int' and 'character'? Either go with the complete name or abbreviate them, not both.

I didn't say it's hard to call a compare function, it's just not what any sane human would expect from such a basic operation on a pretty much primitive data-type.