Why does Java code look so fucking ugly?

because you're supposed to write more than a hello world in it

>>60806709
A problem with verbosity that creeps into every nook and cranny in the language, even in the way the keywords are used.

>>60806709
because it has shit IDEs

>>60806709
Because it's meant to be written in a bloated IDE that will generate 99% of it for you anyway. It's also great for jobs because your boss sees you wrote 2000 lines today even though it does fucking nothing and 1500 of them were generated by the IDE.

>>60806742
there's no better ide than intellij

>public static final int

Holy..wtf

>>60806764
We thank Java for being so awful to develop in so that there was a high enough demand for a quality ide the same way we thank war for the technological advancement it brings. Java development = literal wartime.

File: 2017-06-08-141049_1027x459_scrot.png (69KB, 1107x539px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1107x539px

Why does Java code look so fucking sexy?

>>60806817
wow, you somehow managed to turn a language being by the greatest programming IDE ever created into a disadvantage. some top tier eristic right there

>>60806709
Because camelCase

File: 8128ffe0285520b191fb192dca1582af.png (107KB, 840x590px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 840x590px

i wish Elixir was suitable for desktop applications

>>60806709
It's way too verbose

>tfw Cfags will NEVER know the feeling of writing "public static final int"

>>60806709
Because I'm too concerned with the end result than being autistic over syntax.

File: java-design-patterns.png (38KB, 373x221px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 373x221px

Use a better IDE and learn about your design patterns senpai

>>60806709
>>60806817
>>60806941
webdev confirmed

>>60806709
ffs you're not even doing it right

>Getters and setters
>No compile-time type inference, like the "auto" keyword in C++.
>One class per file, yet it's not enough to go off the file name, you have to declare the class and indent all of its contents.
>Must declare private and public per item. No way to group them.

Whenever Java had a choice, they always went for the option that was more verbose. You are a programmer, but the language designers had to assume you are stupid, you see, so they wanted to save you from yourself.

>>60808656
>>One class per file, yet it's not enough to go off the file name, you have to declare the class and indent all of its contents.
wat - you haven't written any java

>>60808667
I've written Java full time since 1998. It would have been quite enough to just say "class Whatever;" at the top of the file and have it apply from the top of the file on down. But hey, that might have confused developers new to the language for all of sixty seconds or so, so instead they went for the more "correct", verbose solution.

>>60808656
>One class per file, yet it's not enough to go off the file name, you have to declare the class and indent all of its contents.

Why does nobody on /g/ actually know how to code?

>>60808656
>Getters and setters
lombok
>No compile-time type inference, like the "auto" keyword in C++.
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/286
>One class per file, yet it's not enough to go off the file name, you have to declare the class and indent all of its contents.
kek
>Must declare private and public per item. No way to group them.
I get that you like C++ but this is a non-issue

>>60808656
>they wanted to save you from yourself.
Honestly I don't mind that. They've decided they want their language to be very verbose and explicit and that's not a bad thing.

I have a friend who's teaching himself programming and he had me look at his code. It was a mess. None of it made sense or followed any pattern. He had no idea what scope was and made everything global to avoid "not defined" errors (even his 'i' variable in a for loop was global). If he had decided to use Java instead of his made up babby's first language he would have learned to program better simply because of the way the language forces you to be explicit and verbose.

>>60806709
Because brackets in new lines instead of at the end (violates Sun's Java Coding Convention), and because of not using lambdas for the runnable. The try-catch is useless I think.

>>60809062

I can understand the appeal. if you're working in a large group, you're going to have a lot of cretins writing a lot of shit code. Java helps it have some structure.

>>60806873
Someone rewrite this in Clojure.

>>60809129

>because of not using lambdas for the runnable.
This, mainly.