What’s Wrong with OOP and FP

[JN]

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 02:54:05 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 17:59:50 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 12.11.2013 17:10, schrieb eles:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:35:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ali Çehreli:
>>>> Sometimes I have feeling language researchers live in some 
>>>> strange
>>>> imaginary world and never actually check how their
>>>
>>> Lambda the Ultimate and Javaland.
>>
>> Well, in defence of Javaland, it is a consequence how easy it
>
> I hesitated to add Javaland to the list, exactly because of 
> that. I believe it was successful because, first, was designed 
> *by a company* (just like C# is) and, second, because it was 
> mostly like C++ but with increased verbosity (and that means 
> less cryptic and easier to follow a diff).
>
> I am not the first to consider that Java's verbosity is a good 
> thing for a company. But, I confirm that: in my day-to-day job, 
> we use C (and some C++). You would be amazed how much our 
> guidelines lead us towards increased verbosity (names, 
> annotations/comments, declarations).

Java is popular because it's a general purpose language and an
alternative to c++ with following advantages:

- much better IDE support
- OOP by default, all libraries and frameworks follow it
- rich standard library, so that everyone uses java.lang.String
and it's over, while C/C++ libs still try to reinvent their own
string classes (which often have completely different
interfaces), XML, HTTP etc. built-in to the language
- easy to learn, easy to write (no .h/.cpp madness, no cryptic
template errors, no 10 ways to initialize a variable)
- good performance, slightly behind C/C++ in most cases, way
ahead of Python/Ruby/etc.
- mature GUI frameworks with great RAD tools

and many more.