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.

[–] biddy@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)

x.field[5] * 6 + 3

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

[–] biddy@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] Anomandaris@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that's functionally no different than what's already there...

The reason the lines are so long isn't because of anything Java related, it's because of the field names themselves.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

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