Re: AspectJ: solution to Java's repetitiveness?
Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:54:19 -0400, Lew wrote:
EricF wrote:
Java is a bit verbose.
This is a good thing. Why do some people speak as if it were not?
Not all of us would agree with this statement. I don't see it as a good
thing. I honestly don't see how you can justify that statement at all.
Documentation of code is a good thing, yes? If you don't agree there, then
the rest of the syllogism will fall.
Java's so-called "verbosity" is a HUGE boon to people who follow in the
footsteps of those who are too lazy to document their code any other way,
speaking as one who's had to do that. Invariably those who whine that "Java
is too verbose" think that typing a few extra characters in a variable name is
overwhelming. Almost invariably, they write impenetrable code. One can
understand why they'd prefer people not be able to read it, after you suss out
what it's actually doing.
Futhermore, Java really isn't all that verbose. For Pete's sake, you can
acquire an entire monitor and synchronize threads with one keyword, ooh, big
overhead.
Verbosity is good when you use verbosity to document good code. It's only bad
if you have bad code to hide. The desire to shave keystrokes off code writing
is false economy, and damnable laziness.
--
Lew