Paving the on-ramp to Java
openjdk.org
openjdk.org
> Worse, the early exposure to static methods will turn out to be a bad habit that must be later unlearned.
I have been using Java since 1.0 and it is my default language. I am writing Java code today.
I write functions using ‘static’ all the time. I prefer that a function be static. It shows that it does not depend on state of the enclosing object. Using ‘static’ on methods is not a bad habit. Having static fields and state is to be avoided.
Small nitpick :p
Although due to the ambiguity of the word "function", your nitpick still has its place.
I would really like a way to express pure functions in Java. There would need to some way to mark objects as immutable at the language level.
It annoys me even more than no-one seems to care about it much, and most think final is good enough - you can still mutate final objects. In C++ all references are final (in a Java sense) since they can't be reseated, but const actually gets you immutability (modulo const_cast).
I just want everything to be immutable unless mutability is really truly needed!
Otherwise Scala is pretty pragmatic about it (val vs var).
In both cases you still get only shallow immutability, but if nigh every object itself is immutable, shallow immutability may not be so shallow.
Have you tried Rust? It’s nice in this regard; variables are immutable unless explicitly declared mutable.
But it's not terribly easy or even a good idea to switch from Java to Rust at a real company that has no time to rewrite libraries, has to hire developers, and so on.
In C++ you can write a class with some methods that mutate, and some const methods that can't mutate anything, and you can pass around const references through which mutation is guaranteed to be impossible. This all comes for free.
I was thinking that would make it possible to create unmodifiable data objects using that (and not Object as base class).
> I write functions using ‘static’ all the time. I prefer that a function be static.
This, however, does not mean that all the functions should be static. IMHO, the more static stuff you can extract from your instance methods while keeping parameters count to max 3 (magic number that works for me), the better.
Yes this is the way. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(softwa...
So what? How is that a problem?
As an example, suppose I have a static method that takes in an object and returns a result based on the state of that object. Now I have conditional logic in the unit under test that has a dependency on the result of that static method. In my unit test, I don't want to go to the trouble of creating the state of the object to force the delegate call to return a certain result that determines the execution flow, I want to just force that call to return the result I need.
Your method should follow a well rested interface for any touches that are outside of it:
* The input
* The return
* The side effects
You should be able to test that you've fixed a bug where you're calling a dependency 100 times instead of 1 time
It certainly sounds like your stateful object is too complex. Simplify your state.
Recently I tried another take on the same idea: using default methods in Interfaces. It has nice properties, as it enables ~mixins in a way not dissimilar to what Scala provides, and enables overriding (e.g. for tests). Give it a try, it's ... refreshing :)
By far one of the most common errors I see as a CS instructor is aggressive over-reliance on global state. Not global methods, but state. However, usually what causes the student to reach for global state is the fact that it can be accessed from a static method like main; In lieu of figuring out how to structure a class, they reach for the easier "just make the variable static" approach. Allowing the initialization sequence to call main on an instance via the class's zero-arg constructor seems like it would address the point.
Now, what I'd say to that kind of argument is that a good static method, which could really live on its own as a function out there in the world, is something simple enough you'd never want to mock, or is something that is so specific that you'd always want to inject. This is easier to understand if you are used to functional programming styles, and therefore also realize that automated dependency injection was a misstep. It's also easier to get if, like in Scala, there is no such thing as a static method, just classes that have only static methods, and classes that have none.
But until one has 'seen the light' of FP, static methods that are complicated and are not injected will be annoying when someone is trying to not call them in a unit test. Therefore, in some places, static methods are always avoided.
I think some people put unit testing to the extreme by not wanting to test logic outside of the unit tested (which is not possible to do fully). They write additional code for mocks so their tests could be less useful but more "pure".
In fact, dependence on mocking frameworks is a huge code smell because it covers over the common practice of not coding to an interface. If you want to expose poor design in a code base, remove the mocking decencies and see how hard it is to rewrite the tests.
Fine, but that's not relevant to the subject of this document, the "first program", as it would make all fields static, too, and so methods would still be dependent on state. It will just make moving to the next step harder; as the article says: this is probably not the direction we want to go when we scale up from a handful of statements and declarations to a simple class — we probably want to start using classes as classes, not just as containers for static members.
This is totally false. It will always depend on the use case.
The change I would most like to see in a new Java syntax would be to make final and immutable the default. Force the programmer to make clear where state lives.
A good clean programming have it is to wrap all of your stream()/lambdas chains in a static method that describes what they do. This make sure they don’t have access to the local scope and can mutate data.
I'm not really sure what they're on about.
I especially like the language team’s very conservative attitude, valuing backwards compatibility greatly. Here, they again solve most of the problem by simply changing the “program launcher” code, without any modifications/special casing done on the language level. For the rest, we will see. I think foregoing public requirements is a no-brainer, the rest may need a bit further thought based on further comments, here is the mailing list: https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-observers/2022...
As a (mostly) python and C++ programmer, Java feels like someone is afraid they’re speaking to an imbecile, so they constantly repeat themselves and over-explain every point.
Jvm developers also take backwards compatibility seriously which is a concern for companies that will be around for more than a year or two.
While I reach for Python for one-off and random small stuff, the lack of types, it’s lack of performance, and the significant spacing make it challenging to share code and maintain.
Java certainly has its place and the changes in this article certainly expand its footprint.
C++ devs seem to live in a bubble of self admiration, spending hours over engineering under-performing applications they never profile - after all, profiling is like debugging: it's for people who cant code :p
This is how you convince everyone they're speaking to an imbecile.
Another example: the lack of literals for collections in Java. Imagine this:
Map x = {"a": "A", "b": "B"}; // not Java
Map x = new java.util.HashMap();
x.put("a", "A");
x.put("b", "B");
When things like these compound, you end up with code-bases many times bigger and harder to grasp than in other languages.
Granted: you can write shitty code in any language, nothing will save you from that... But I think Java makes it harder to write simple and concise code, even to experienced coders.
Then there's also the "cultural" thing many already mentioned ("enterprise Java")... which is very real, but no JEP/JSR will fix that ;-).
Brian shows brilliance, even at "trivial" issues. I trust his judgement :-).
var ages = Map.of("sarah",19, "dan",35); //valid javaStressing the point: this welcomed improvement on the API is a lot more than "saving keystrokes".
I find that I use structures like that primarily when interfacing with other loosely-typed languages, like Javascript, which do encourage you to create structures on the fly like that. Impedance mismatch is always a pain, no matter where it occurs.
That's not to say Java doesn't want you to use Maps. They do -- but only when the content is dynamic. They don't want to add literals for it because that's the opposite of their goal.
There are days when you want it anyway, and then you grumble that the language has forced you to do something ugly. But every language is a set of tradeoffs where some things are ugly, other things are pretty, and the language spec doesn't require a shelf of its own.
The same fact is what makes unit tests so brittle. Ideally, you do as little of that as possible: you less fake stuff you make, the more robust the test will be.
There are days you can't, and that sucks. But the language is giving you a nudge in the direction of how to do that, by making it easier to construct actual POJOs than unstructured intermediate data.
A cleaner/simpler alternative was Kobalt, but it’s now abandoned. A simple, official build tool would make the ecosystem easier to learn.
The biggest issue for teaching Java is IMHO not really the syntax of hello world - as Brian says, teachers can handwave this by saying they'll explain it later. It's worth improving mostly because it helps regular programmers who want to use Java in a scripting-like way. The more fundamental difficulty that newbies have is showing other people what they've done.
In the old JRE days it was easy - just send them a fat JAR that opens up a window with Swing and does some cool stuff. Your friends/parents/teachers/etc would probably have a JRE installed already and it'd all just work. In recent years they've abandoned the idea of a JRE and JARs as an app format. You can still open up a window with Swing or JavaFX and get scribbling, but now to show anyone what you did they want you to bundle the JVM and make a more 'native' style app with it. There's a lot to recommend that approach overall, but it's unquestionably harder for learners.
Last year I was discussing this problem with Dmitry Jemerov (product manager for IntelliJ). He sees this issue directly - learners download IntelliJ, get some cool pixels on screen with Swing or JavaFX and then hit a brick wall when they want to send their program to other people. They ask around and it becomes "oh why aren't you learning web dev?" and then they balk when they realize that involves learning 3 new languages and maybe server sysadmin stuff. App stores don't help here because Apple/MS don't like their nice discovery system being gunked up with "my first code" stuff. Even if they stick with Java and try to learn jpackage they quickly realize they need Windows, and a Mac, and maybe Linux just to make packages that their friends can run at all, and then having done all that there's no way to push updates!
We were discussing this problem in the context of maybe doing integrating IntelliJ together with Conveyor [1], a tool my company has been writing that makes desktop app distribution drastically simpler. Actually if you are OK with self-signing it's no harder than compiling Markdown to HTML is, the workflow is very similar. Even if you want to sign it's still very easy; the hardest part is just the general bureaucracy involved with buying the certs. It works for any kind of app including Electron or native apps, but of course with a JVM app you don't have to cross-build anything and Java GUI toolkits are a bit easier to learn than web dev.
There's more work to do here, for instance drawing icons is tedious and when learning a distraction, so we've got a feature in development that draws icons for you. And whilst you can upload the resulting package repository to GitHub Releases, that's not automated and it could be.
I think we're pretty close now to basically abolishing this on-ramp/off-cliff, at least if your users are willing to copy/paste commands to the terminal (due to the self-signing; if you supply real code signing certs the UX is obviously much nicer). Getting rid of the code signing requirements means sandboxing but that's a bigger lift.
BTW - Conveyor is actually implemented as a parallel incremental task-caching build system, internally. We've generalized it and are currently experimenting with that for some of our own build needs. We're some way from being able to replace Maven/Gradle but totally agree that usability of existing build tools is very poor. Usability is in fact the primary ground on which this experimental build system differentiates.
And when they test it on Windows they'll realize that the launcher that jpackage creates does something weird on startup (possibly involving relaunching itself? [1]) that makes Windows display a busy cursor for a while after the program has launched, so they'll have to forget about jpackage and redo it all with something like Packr [2] and Wix# [3]...
[1] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/fe45835f7cebfccd4544ae19...
They’ve had great tools along these lines in the Clojure world where the repl/shell has been around longer (deps.edn+repl and boot).
Do serious people actually complain about this often? I think it's more of a drive-by comment from people who don't like Java for whatever other reasons.
I wouldn’t think a serious person would continually bring it up as an actual issue preventing them achieving things.
Opinionated yes, dogmatic not.
UnbelievablyLongClassName unbelievablyLongClassName = new UnbelievablyLongClassName(parameterName, anotherParameterName);
Given that nearly all existing code follows this pattern (yes, there is var which is only useful in some cases as opposed to C++'s auto keyword) Java has become hopelessly convoluted.
Before I get downvoted, you should keep on mind that I was an early adopter (1996) of "Java as a sane C++" and have been stunned by the verbosity of "modern" Java applications. Unless the standard libraries change (and the effect of that would be staggering) and the open source libraries all change, and every existing application code changed to use reasonable names, Java will always be overly verbose.
That's verbose, but how is it convoluted? It seems extremely plain and simple and linear to me? A local variable is set to a new instance of a class with a couple of parameters. What do you see as being convoluted here?
It does however have some stuff that's plain dumb (can't have functions outside classes, public static void main(String[]), ...) some of it isn't even fixable (default visibility should be private, final should be like const in C++, or even better like const in D).
This is a change that takes very little effort and doesn't impact professional development in the slightest.
Maybe Java has changed in the last 5 years, but idiomatic Go has much, much, much less boilerplate than the idiomatic Java I used to know.
The worst part is that some libraries use getters as convention. e.g. Jackson (by default) uses getter methods to decide what to serialize.
I had not touched Java in a long while until yesterday when I wanted to do a quick benchmark of Lucerne to compare it to a search library in another language. I was surprised how easy and quick it was to do this.
I have considered updating my old book for modern Java. It would probably only take a few days to update the examples, but updating the book text would take longer.
I don’t recall having a problem with Jackson, maybe there is an option you can use? But it’s 5 years now since I used Java.
But my point of course was that this is idiomatic boilerplate you don’t find in other languages. Along with a bunch of other ceremony and nonsense like automatic dependency injection and reflection heavy frameworks that reduce mechanical effort by creating complex, invisible and abstract conceptual systems that require far more mental gymnastics than they save on typing. (I’m looking at you, JPA)
E.g. Foo.java
println("foo")
class Foo implements Runnable {
void run() {
System.out.println("foo");
}
}
class Main {
void main() {
new Foo().run();
}
}Instead of stubbornly implementing Runnable from those flat files, mix in the well-established concept of single-function-interfaces (Runnable is just one of many) and introduce a top-level "extends" that makes the file body an SFI implementation:
extends java.lang.Runnable;
java.lang.System.out.println("Hello world");
BTW, I think the pedantic view on this based on the (mailing list discussion) is that it becomes java.lang.StaticImports.println("Hello"), which calls System.out.println.
1. Single file single function imperative
2. Single file multi-function imperative (introduce multiple functions)
3. OO (introduce classes etc)
My understanding is that the ceremony and redundancy is deliberate. You type the same meaning multiple times so the compiler can detect inconsistencies and tell you about them. I.e. it's a feature, not a bug. Slightly analogous to type annotations or unit tests, one wants to write the redundant information in exchange for compiler diagnostics.
Syntactic sugar to make the language less annoying to work in is opposed to that goal, hard to guess if that's better for the target market.
I don't think you need to understand every single character of your very first program right from the beginning. A few of the concepts can be hand waved away to be explained in a later chapter without impeding the overall understanding of programs once you left the sub-twenty-lines beginner programs.
For me it seems like a reaction to JavaScripts and Pythons of this world, optimizing for Hello World just to win over them on those 30 seconds.
They are going to rewrite their applications anyway, when performance comes knocking on the door.
Tomorrow might be Go, Rust, Zig, or whatever they fancy using.
These are projects at scale of dozens of developers with various skill sets distributed around the world, optimizing for Hello World hardly matters.
And one could argue that quickly writing up some program happens often regardless of skillset (I do make at least two psvm Main classes per month), so the code reduction there is also a welcome change.
But the behaviour of the launcher is covered by the language spec isn't it? It's the language that specifies how main is selected.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se19/html/jls-12.ht...
Also, even if it might become a spec change (a language level one, not a jvm level one), it will be an additive change, at worst some new program won’t run on older JVMs, but all old program will continue to run on new ones.
Read the article, the "static trap" is a real thing for new students (on top of all other ceremony). To solve the issue of main being non-static some students will start to put static everywhere as a 'fix' to their initial issue, a day or two later they'll be asking why every student gets the same name (because they have one static variable to keep the student or name objects).
The verbosity of Java also introduces another more serious problem for learning, not only do the students have problems compiling, they also start putting their mind on focusing on syntax instead of logic once they're past the first few problems. The issue of de-programming students from this affliction is waaay too common to be ignored.
I wasn't found of minimal APIs, global usings and implicit Program.cs for C# 10, and share a similar opinion in relation to Java.
No need to try to make it look like JavaScript and Python, each language has its place.
I wanted to delve into Java. And sure enough, my very first thoughts were "wtf is public static void, why does this even matter, and why is print() so weird and long?"
Shit, I ended up finding it easier to get into F# than Java.
Then I got hired for a Java role, which is proof that the universe has a sense of humour.
Which makes the feature kind of pointless. Especially since all teaching materials (and those who have used them for teaching) were saying to just ignore the rest for now and concentrate on
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
I've taught C to beginners after the Java class and whilst there are some related problems those students encounter, the extra confusion caused by having main in a class doesn't exist (and doesn't cause as much syntax vs logic confusion later on).
The lecture notes that eventually became this book were their path into discovering C++.
https://www.bertrand.pt/livro/programacao-com-classes-em-c-p...
And then there is the issue with leaky abstractions when the code that gets compiled interfers with the ideal worlds that the compiler injects, and possible confusing error messages get generated.
Like it happens with all guest languages that target the JVM pretending to be Java, and one gets a confusing stack trace only understandable by those with proper Java background.
The problem isn't the set of things students will need to learn, but the order in which they encounter them. Students write a one-file program before they write a two-file one, but because Java is optimised for large programs, today they encounter things like accessibility rules -- which exist to serve large programs -- before they even get to write a very small one. That's the idea of the "on-ramp" in the title -- you end up int the same place, but with a smoother ride.
Both students and teachers who prefer Python to Java as a first language mentioned this "on-ramp" problem as one of the reasons. There are others, and they will be addressed by other enhancements.
BTW, importing other packages and using helper methods does not require knowing about accessibility rules.
> Like it happens with all guest languages that target the JVM pretending to be Java, and one gets a confusing stack trace only understandable by those with proper Java background.
But this is not a "guest language" and we'll need to ensure that stack traces -- which we also control -- will not be confusing.
Java needs staunchly maintain its static type nature rather than move towards a ‘everything is a string/array whatever’. The concept of types are not only powerful, performant, but they are way to grasp conceptually because the Java semantics and compile time checking.
I do wish CDI (or SpringFramewotk) was brought into CS and similar degrees. Dependency Injection brings a large number of good habits to developers, but it is a concept that is hard to teach as an employer. In our onboarding program, we have to teach people about the CDI container (a program ruining your program) managing all of your state for you (to great benefit and speed of development). During this time, we’re not getting much value out of the developer, and the teacher is also away from their normal duties as well. :/
This article misses the point, however. The problem is not writing your first hello world. The ceremony is not so much in the language itself but in the infrastructure. The verbosity of the language is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think Java back in the 90's started out actually quite decently, although from the get-go it had the verbosity. But at least it didn't have everything else yet that you're expected to know for any non-trivial program.
The first time the word "enterprise" appeared together with Java was the moment it went all downhill.
https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2011/07/19/literall...
My concept is much more powerful by having a new kind of class declaration alongside 'record' and 'enum' - 'entrypoint'.
Edit: but a bad job at a lot of other things.
main() { println("Hello World"); }
I know that this notation is traditionally reserved for constructors but I'm not 100% sure why we cannot differentiate between methods and constructors just by looking at class name?
The proposed changes don’t have these negatives, while still provide benefits.
And i do not buy your argument that it will break the grammar, the parser of javac consider constructors as methods.
Well no, because that on-ramps you to Groovy, not Java.
At a more intermediate level Effective Java 3rd edition is a must read.
Did Java's papa get jealous?
But I don't think you're entirely wrong to suggest that competition had something to do with this. Python is one of Java's main competitors, and when it comes to teaching a first language it is the main competitor. Both students and teachers who prefer Python as a first language mentioned this "on-ramp" problem as one of the reasons. There are others, and they will be addressed by other enhancements.
[1]: Java's "charter" calls for it being a last mover, adopting features after they've been successfully used elsewhere
[2]: Although there is one I hope it would one day -- nullability types.
On the JVM: I'd say yes.
Scala, Groovy, Jython, JRuby, and what not came and went.
I'd say Clojure is the third, and it take a nice place in the design space.
But Kotlin to me is so close to Java that it is basically Java 2.0: the Java that Java cannot be due to intended organizational slowness.
> Python is one of Java's main competitors, and when it comes to teaching a first language it is the main competitor.
Yes it probably is. The changes outlines in the article are not going to help here I'm afraid.
But I'm weird. I'd say the best lang without static typing for noobs is a LISP (so that every student is likely equally confused). When learning a language with types go for Rust or Idris. All not exactly competitors of Java :)
When Java was created in the '90s, James Gosling said that it is intended to be a slow-evolving conservative language that will only pick features from other languages once they have been sufficiently proven to be worth it. We try to live up to that goal and be a last-mover. It's not organisational slowness but conservatism in design that has worked very well for Java. Java will never adopt many if not most of the features Kotlin has, because most features never prove themselves as particularly beneficial over time, and because we try to make the language as minimal as possible, because it's intended for a very wide audience, and, in general, most programmers prefer languages with fewer features to languages with more features.
I'd say Kotlin was Java 2.0 ten to five years ago, but now it's a language that's going in a different direction from Java's.
> The changes outlines in the article are not going to help here I'm afraid.
Not alone, but this is just the beginning.
Maybe it is, maybe it is not... We all do not know the future.
> Java will never adopt many if not most of the features Kotlin has, because most features never prove themselves as particularly beneficial over time
So what. I care (as said before) for the implicit nulls problem. Also, I dont like to my code to be littered with annotations (to introduce magic) and exceptions-as-alternative-return-values.