TIL about Sublinks, a Java-based alternative to Lemmy's backend

@[email protected] · edit-2 3 months ago

TIL about Sublinks, a Java-based alternative to Lemmy's backend

@masterspace · 3 months ago

I was taught Java in High School, then had one course on it in uni, then in my professional life ended up learning C#, Python, and Typescript and building servers with them before now coming back to Java 17 / Spring Boot thinking “oh this will be pretty similar to C# from what I remember”, and instead I’ve found myself cursing out Java / Spring Boot many many times.

Java’s insistence on everything being object oriented is a huge hindrance to it as a language. It forces it to be ridiculously verbose in so many cases. Not every concept in code is a Noun, there are lots of times where it makes more conceptual sense to think of them as Verbs, but as a language Java still doesn’t fully support that.

Give me a nice easy to follow functional Express.js chain any day, over jumping around a million magically connected ______ProviderBuilderProvider classes.

Dark Arc · 3 months ago

You can write functions… A static function is not particularly different from a free function written in a namespace. You can even use a static import to allow yourself to call it without qualification.

______ProviderBuilderProvider

No idea what this is in reference to. I have a feeling your issue is more with the frameworks you’ve worked with than Java itself.

@masterspace · edit-2 3 months ago

You can write functions… A static function is not particularly different from a free function written in a namespace. You can even use a static import to allow yourself to call it without qualification.

I’m referring to functional programming concepts like anonymous functions and functions as parameters. Java finally added support for this with Lambda expression in Java 8, but because it took them so long, most libraries and frameworks that wanted to support backwards compatibility didn’t use them and still forced everything into classes and objects, meaning that most Java code bases you find are purely object oriented.

______ProviderBuilderProvider

idea what this is in reference to. I have a feeling your issue is more with the frameworks you’ve worked with than Java itself.

It’s in reference to the fact that unlike basically every other modern programming language, Java doesn’t let you do stuff like have default parameters for functions, instead forcing you to overload them:

In Javascript / C# you just have:

function DoSomething(int  howManyTimes = 10){
    //something
}

In Java you have:

function DoSomething() {
    int howManyTimes = 10;
    //something
}
function DoSomething(int howManyTimes) {
    //something
}

Which then leads you to recommendations of using the Builder Pattern, and now you’ve got the function / class you care about rewritten three times, plus a whole a builder class and a bunch of building specific functions, all of which are basically just a whole bunch of unnecessary verbose bullshit to approximate default parameters that are expressed more clearly with 2 additional characters in other languages.

Dark Arc · edit-2 3 months ago

Sounds like you’re working with some bad libraries and writing some bad code IMO.

Java 8 was released over a decade ago. Lambdas in Java are in great shape. Java’s streaming API makes heavy use of them.

Builders should not be used all that much, certainly not in place of default arguments.

The correct way to write that is simply:

void doSomething() {
    int howManyTimes = 10;
    doSomething(howManyTimes);
}
void doSomething(int howManyTimes) {
    //something
}

Is it more lines that a default argument? Sure. It’s not that bad though. It also resolves some ABI complexity issues that come into play with default arguments. If you use default arguments in C++ anything calling that code needs to be rebuilt if the default argument is updated. In Java because it’s part of the definition of the function not the call site the default is updated by replacing the library. I don’t know how C# handles this, perhaps they create the overload implicitly. It’s not a problem for JavaScript or Python because they’re interpreted.

Bonus points, you can use an interface to provide a default overload like that even if you’re dealing with something that’s abstract.

I’m also mildly concerned by how you’re using JavaScript like function declarations in your examples with C# like naming scheme to demonstrate why Java is bad.

As your own link the builder pattern is an alternative to the factory pattern. Neither of which Java or any other language requires you to use. Note there is not a single “Builder” in the entire sublinks Java codebase.

Late edit: Also going to add in https://rust-unofficial.github.io/patterns/patterns/creational/builder.html

@masterspace · 3 months ago

Sounds like you’re working with some bad libraries and writing some bad code IMO.

Yes, the Java language encourages it, as do popular frameworks like Spring / Boot.

Is it more lines that a default argument? Sure. It’s not that bad though.

Yes it is. You’re adding and entire new function block for every single optional parameter. Add three more optional params and you’ve got a page of text to express a single line in other languages.

Bonus points, you can use an interface to provide a default overload like that even if you’re dealing with something that’s abstract.

That’s great, you can in C# and Typescript too but you don’t have to.

I’m also mildly concerned by how you’re using JavaScript like function declarations in your examples with C# like naming scheme to demonstrate why Java is bad.

Lmao, I’m mildly concerned that you don’t understand the concept of pseudo code.

Note there is not a single “Builder” in the entire sublinks Java codebase.

That’s awesome, it will be the first Java project I’ve encountered where that’s the case.

Dark Arc · 3 months ago

the Java language encourages it

It really doesn’t. Perhaps your teachers and workplace do out of some dated design ideals though.

Like everything else it was a fad and it’s got its time and place.

Yes it is. You’re adding and entire new function block for every single optional parameter. Add three more optional params and you’ve got a page of text to express a single line in other languages.

See my (late) edit (sorry things jump into my head sometimes … and forum software is inferior to chat software in adding that in a sensible way) about what the unobvious consequences of default arguments can be in some languages. Also, do you really write default arguments that often?

If you’re writing functions with tons of arguments that are all defaulted that should also be a red flag there’s probably a refactor that needs done to bundle that data.

Granted, the indirection that can cause in a language without value types (like Java) can be a burden in some very performance critical situations … but those are few and far between in practice.

Lmao, I’m mildly concerned that you don’t understand the concept of pseudo code.

Touche.

That’s awesome, it will be the first Java project I’ve encountered where that’s the case.

There are plenty of them out there… Maybe your code base too if you can figure out why you’re using so many of them. There’s really nothing profoundly unique about Java that predisposes it to needing large numbers of builders.

TIL about Sublinks, a Java-based alternative to Lemmy's backend

TIL about Sublinks, a Java-based alternative to Lemmy's backend

Sublinks

README

Sublinks

A decentralized, censorship-resistant, and privacy-preserving social network.

About

Features

Contact

Contributing

Support / Donate