• snowe
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Imports wouldn’t help. It’s setters with a ton of chained getters

        • snowe
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Definitely. I’m pretty sure they modified the code to look as bad as possible just to take the photo though. You can clearly see all the lines are marked as modified in the gutter.

          • @hughperman@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            It’s also a good way to potentially multiply your query costs and slow down the function, while introducing possible inconsistencies if the objects are modified between the first and last time they are requested.

        • @clutchmatic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          This is the best answer… Or the outer classes being delegated access to the inner ones and so on, like an onion.

          I wonder if this is one of the situations that Kotlin delegated parameters were designed to handle? (I’m new to Kotlin and still don’t understand that “by” construct there)

  • @moosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    Is this a good thing I’m looking at or a bad thing? I don’t get it but then again, I’m not a programmer.

    • Eugene
      link
      fedilink
      301 year ago

      Java is a programming language that is notorious for being verbose, the joke is that you need a massively wide monitor to view it without the text being cut off

        • TaldenNZ
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          We would. And we’d tend not to be using such verbose variable names. Avoiding abbreviation in the method and type-names is idiomatic though.

    • @1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      The joke is Java is verbose. It takes many characters to accomplish simple routines. Depending on your view that could either be good or bad for reading the code later.

      • Anomandaris
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but most of the lines in the screenshot break down to:

        object1.setA(object2.getX().getY().getZ().getI().getJ().getK().getE().getF(i).getG().toString())

        Aside from creating a method inside the class (which you should probably do here in Java too) how would another language do this in a cleaner way?

        • @bleistift2@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          You shouldn’t reach through an object to invoke a method. That tightly couples the classes which getJ and getG (for instance) return.

          • Anomandaris
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            That is an interesting point, but it’s not Java specific, you could do this exact thing in most other languages and it would look pretty much the same.

            Considering the fact that in a lot of enterprise projects the data structures are not necessarily open to change, how would you prevent reaching through objects like this?

            • @1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              This is why I wasn’t too critical of Java. Java is verbose by convention and other languages are more terse by convention. You could just as easily write some nasty ‘snake_cased_object_abstract_factory_adapter_facade_broker_manager’ in python or any other language. There are a few things syntax wise working against it but you can still write (overly) terse Java and it’s just as annoying to read as in any other language. IMO it’s convention and style not the language itself. You can also say some mean things about languages with less verbosity but more operators and keywords like C++/rust. It’s a funny meme tho lol anyone who has worked in Java knows there’s at least a bit of truth to it

            • @bleistift2@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I’ll shrink your example. Suppose you have an object A which has a B which has a C, which is what you need.

              By writing a.getB().getC(), you are implicitly coupling A and C together without A noticing. All A knows is that it is coupled to B. Should B ever decide to use a different C’, which would make more sense for B, it may break your code without noticing it.

              The solution is to make the coupling explicit. A should define a getC function that observes the needed contract. For the time being, it may get its C from B (which is fine, because C is under B’s immediate control), but if B changes, and wants to use C’, you know to look into A (which is already explicitly coupled to B) and see if it can still function. You’d notice that it relied on B’s returning C and can find a solution to this.

              An example with fewer variables: You have a shopping cart, which manages items. Implicit coupling translates to knowing and relying on the fact that the items are stored in an array. Adding an item the bad way would be shoppingCart.getItems()[shoppingCart.getItems().getLength] = item;*

              The proposed solution adds the function ShoppingCart::addItem. Should ShoppingCart switch to a linked list, it can change the implementation of addItem accordingly. Instead of reaching through the cart into the items, you make dealing with the items the problem of ShoppingCart.

              I don’t have copy at hand, so I can’t check. I think this advice stems from “The Pragmatic Programmer” by David Thomas and Andrew Hunt.

              * I don’t actually know Java, so please forgive if this example wouldn’t really work.

          • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            It’s sad that it took getting so far down the thread before somebody pointed out the obvious program design flaw.

            If you’re digging many levels down into your datamodel from high up for lots of datapieces, it’s probably the case that both the data is unnecessarily framented and the code design itself doesn’t have proper OO isolation of responsabilities.

            If you’re designing for performance (a well know raeson to screw OO design), then the datamodel itself would be a lot flatter (because you get more performance on the DB by trading it for space), whilst if you’re not then you break the thing into parts as you have functions were you fetch intermediate objects into memory and handle the data in them (a Visitor Pattern would probably make this a lot cleaner).

            I bet whomever designed the datamodel isn’t the same as those doing the coding.

            • @bleistift2@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              To be fair, probably hardly anyone actually looked at the code. And now that I did, I think this is compiled, not source code.

        • @fredthedeadhead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Kotlin would represent the getter/setters as synthetic properties (and do so automatically, since Kotlin interops with Java).

          object1.A = object2.X.Y.Z.I.J.K.E.getF(i).G.toString()
          

          Of course it’s still not great (there’s still too much nesting, there’s something fundamentally wrong with how the data is structured) but at least the code is less noisy.

        • @Blackthorn@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Well I guess the point is that you shouldn’t need all these method calls to achieve simple goals. Most of those “getF” are calls to some SystemFactory to get a GenericObjectFactory and so on and so forth.

          • Anomandaris
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            This just tells me you don’t use Java. Factory classes are just used to create objects in a standardized way, but this code isn’t creating anything, it’s just getting nested fields from already instantiated objects.

            • Square Singer
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              Thos code is obviously nonsense to show the issue.

              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.

              • Anomandaris
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                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.

                • Square Singer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

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

              • @biddy@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                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.

                • Square Singer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  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)

                  vs

                  x.field[5] * 6 + 3

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

  • Nato Boram
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    What Dart looks like when written by ActionScript programmers

  • @Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    LOL, that said. The BEST thing I ever bought when WFH started was a 4k monitor.

    The extra screen real estate is amazing

    • VanillaGorilla
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Don’t forget the repository methods! getAllByTenantAndActiveAndCreatedAfterAndFirstNameContainsOrderByLastName

      • Yeah that can get ugly but it’s still better than writing native queries because you know it’s gonna automatically translate to any db specific sql flavour.

        When they get a bit too long and ugly I either write default methods using specifications or I create a more concisely named default method that wraps the verbose monster.

        • VanillaGorilla
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or you could rename your fields to single characters! getAllByAAndBOrderByC

          Now I feel dirty…

    • @sip@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      you forgot about AbstractSimpleShitLotsGoodLibrariesButWeDecidedToMakeOurOwn and AbstractSimpleShitLotsGoodLibrariesButWeDecidedToMakeOurOwnAbstractFactory

  • zazaserty
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Damn it hurts my eyes. I don’t like when verbose languages require such long lines, it feels uncomfortable.

      • @Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve bought one and sent it back again. I felt like I’m not utilizing most of the space since I had to move my head too much to see windows on either side.

        I’m now using two 4k Screens. In in the middle and one to the side, but rotates by 90 degrees. Can recommend that. Though for gaming… I can imagine it there.

        Personal preference I guess.

        • @bleistift2@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          I recently switched desks at my company and found one with two monitors. The seam was right in front of me. So if you have a task that has you watching a single monitor most of the time, you’re always looking to one side.

          I stopped wondering why the colleague who sat there before was complaining of neck pain.

            • @bleistift2@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Judging from my work – sourcecode, which has short lines and is read from left to right – I think so. I’d either have to balance the editor in the center or always look at the left edge.

              • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                For a dual screen setup, you could just offset the screens. Primary screen straight ahead, secondary on whichever side works best for you. This is how I used to work.

        • GizmoLion
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Oh yeah, it was brutal to play Apex on initially, but eventually you relearn where your eye needs to dart to to see your health and stuff and it gets a lot easier.

          Then you learn how to process all that peripheral information and nobody can sneak up on you ever again lol.

  • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    Jfc. Do people really write code like this? I’ve been writing code in Java for 15+ years and have never seen anything like this.

    You need more skill, not a wider monitor. SMH.

    • Hello world in Java:

      class 9-A {
          public static endangered therefore protected final void main(String[] args) {
              System.prepareTheOutputBufferForPrintingAsTheNextStatementWillDoSo(args);
              System.in.out.in.out.shake.it.all.around("Java is a programming language " +
                  "invented by the intelligent monkeys " +
                  "working at Sun Microsystems.");
              return void; // duh!
          }
       }
      
      • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        ROFL you’ve proved my point. Just because Java gives you an opportunity to hang yourself doesn’t mean you should or have to.

        You took one line of code and turned it into a novel. Bad programmers do this and then ignorant folks blame it on the language when it’s really just a lack of knowledge/skill.

        • You must be fun at parties! Seriously, this is a meme sub and the wildly exaggerated helloworld example I pasted (from this hilarious article) is obviously satire. I agree, that

          1. There are way worse programming languages than Java
          2. The verbosity is not the biggest problem of java, it is rather the dogmatic OOP paradigm that sucks.
      • @Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        I get making fun of java’s verbosity for things like checked exceptions but hello world really isn’t that much worse than most other languages especially considering all the “boilerplate” is required for any program more complicated than hello world in pretty much every language. But if a useless program really is too verbose for you see java 21.

        void main() {
          System.out.println("hello world");
        }
        
    • @Von_Broheim@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, you never see this in enterprise settings. Sure builders or streams can get a bit long but you just pop each .x() on a new line.

      And when they’re on new lines intellij has a cool feature where it creates a little UI only comment next to the line showing what type it returns.

      • @XaeroDegreaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In an enterprise setting we’d definitely create a method in that object what would have that chain in it, and call that instead… It seems like it’s used over, and over again.

        Anyhow, we’re sitting here trying to make sense of something that obviously some sort of joke haha.

        Man we’re such fucking nerds.

    • @muhanga@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Somewhere someone probably does… But this piece of code really look like someone either tried to inline a bunch of calls or this is code generated object mapper from json or other nested model.

      Nobody with a sane mind and serious attitude will use this code as a “real” code. (I still believe in people, despite all the evidence to the contrary I get every day)

      As a fun bit though this taken some dedication.