• Square Singer
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    Thos code is obviously nonsense to show the issue.

    But other languages would simplify stuff. For example, some languages call getters implicitly, so .getField() becomes .field. Same with list indexing, which could be done with operator overloading, so x.get(i) becomes x[i].

    In this situation that would be able to reduce the character count a fair bit.

      • Square Singer
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Your post doesn’t seem to answer to anything I said in my post. Did you answer to the wrong post?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      The new convention in modern Java is to use .field() instead of .getField().

      What you’re complaining about isn’t Java, it’s object oriented programming, which Java basically forces on you. Verbosity is a flaw of OOP.

      • Square Singer
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Compare:

        x.field[5]

        with

        x.getField().get(5)

        Both are exactly the same level of OOP, but the Java version is roughly twice as long. Add operator overloading to the mix and it becomes much worse:

        x.getField().get(5).multiply(6).add(3)

        vs

        x.field[5] * 6 + 3

        All this has nothing to do with OOP, but with syntactic sugar that is applied.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          As I said, the convention is now x.field() not x.getField()

          What language are you comparing against here? x.field[5] is valid Java if field is a public array, but that’s not OOP, at least not in a pure sense.

          • Square Singer
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not valid Java for e.g. Lists, Maps, Strings or any programmer-defined classes.

            Same with operator overloading.

            myVectorA + myVectorB is not valid Java, but it is valid OOP in e.g. Python or C++. And this kind of syntactic sugar reduces verbosity enourmously, while still being OOP.

            If you have ever worked in e.g. Python, Groovie or Kotlin you notice quickly how non-verbose OOP can be.

            It seriously is just Java.

            And Javas insistance on having you wrap non-OOP things in fake OOP constructs (e.g. static methods, which are just functions in modules, but you have to uselessly abuse classes as modules) isn’t helping either.