2010/10/14 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > I disagree. I read a lot of Java from various projects, all with different > coding conventions, and these coding conventions are never an impediment to > my reading for more than a couple of minutes.
I need only point to a simple example that involves sorting based on a particular field of an object. Can you reduce the surface layer Java to make it readable? Of course. It takes effort though, compared to other languages where it would likely be a one liner with all parts making sense. I was reading the Programming Clojure book and they do an excerpt of the method "isBlank" from Apache Commons. As much as I despise reading Lisp, I must confess "(defn blank? [s] (every? #(Character/isWhitespace %) s))" is a ton more "readable" than the comparative Java code. And this doesn't even pull generics into the mix. As soon as you start seeing use side generics on a ton of methods, can you truly claim this is somehow "readable?" > I think it's not so much about the formatting than it is about the language: > it's just hard to write convoluted Java and from a language standpoint, > there are usually not more than one way to do one thing. Is this a conceit? I've seen plenty of convoluted Java code, and I've not exactly been around a long time. Seriously, throw generics into the mix and it is suddenly hard not to write convoluted code. :) To claim that Java is somehow a readable language completely betrays the fact that it was only meant to be readable to people that already knew C. -- 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.
