Which implies Java is only providing a low level core and expecting the "ecosystem" to build usable libraries based on it.
Yet, when looking at many of the libraries I use regularly, I get the opposite impression. It seems more common to take away stuff. fileutils takes away almost all of the declared exceptions that I honestly never need in most scenarios stringutils takes away the need to explicitly test for nulls every third line google collections takes away mutability when it's not actually needed jodatime is a complete replacement for Date/Calendar. It doesn't build on it but instead takes away an API that is, frankly, a pain in the proverbial It's very hard to defend a core API as being foundational when so many of the 3rd party libraries are subtractive! Though it does reinforce the idea that Java is perhaps too verbose and laden with boilerplate. Really, Java isn't so simple as it's made out to be, it just feels that way because it's the devil you know... On 29 July 2010 15:40, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/29/10 16:30 , [email protected] wrote: > >> Those libraries/frameworks/APIs are complex just because real > >> life projects are complex. They are supposed to do something > >> useful and actually they do. They represent the richness of the > >> Java ecosystem and allow us to do complex things that fit the > >> needs of our complex world. > > > > Yes, java APIs are designed to handle very complex, worst case > > scenarios. It's the simple stuff the APIs fail at. And there > > really isn't any excuse for this. Why does everyone have their > > own StringUtil/FileUtil/XMLUtil classes? Why does apache commons > > exist? Because many simple tasks require a ton of code with the > > standard APIs. > > > Right, but I think it has been a deliberate choice - they are > foundation APIs. I don't know whether it's right or wrong. The problem > is that as soon as you think of things at a higher level, there are > different ways to do the same thing and probably a number of alternate > solutions make sense. So I'd rather expect that for some common things > I'd use third party APIs. I'd say that by providing only foundation > APIs Java did not the wrong thing from a technical perspective; they > did it wrong from the marketing perspective. > > - -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people > [email protected] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxRkskACgkQeDweFqgUGxciSgCeOpqG2yR7vHl5xLH9An/JxJB2 > AmwAoJU3DL91gwNroy8+mVuN8M0nHTlI > =ytff > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
