1. 12
  1.  

  2. 9

    The title supplied for this isn’t in line with what the linked article articulates as a point. It’s commentary on the article. I’d personally perfer a title that is in line with the content of the article and then commentary from the submitter as a comment here.

    To summarize the article:

    • I love clojure
    • I never consider lines of code to be a valid metric so I didn’t worry about “verbosity” of Java code
    • Event happened and I am now rethinking my previous position, perhaps it does matter in some regards
    1. 6

      I clicked on the article thinking it was an article that would “defend” the verbosity of Java, but it’s not the case at all. I agree that the title does not clearly reflect what the article is about.

      1. 1

        I think a better title would be, “Why we should care about the verbosity of Java”. Actually, it would be even better to say, “Why we should care about verbosity in programming languages,” because, while the article was specifically comparing Java and Clojure, there’s nothing in that article that’s specific to either Java or Clojure. One could have made similar comparisons with Java and Scala, or Java and Kotlin.

      2. 9

        The only difference in readability is that the Java version has a lot more parentheses.

        It’s not often I’ve seen the “Ye gads, the parenthesis are everywhere” card used in favour of Lisp :-)

        1. 5

          Here’s a study that suggests that lines of code is a better predictor of the number of bugs/faults in a codebase than a lot of other historical OO-related metrics.

          I would be very interested in reading other studies about this, rather than just anecdotes.

          1. 1

            Those metrics might be useful for maintenance though. Nothing is worse than jumping around 20 files and classes with virtual methods to figure out what’s going on.