Why I absolutely love java (gist.github.com)

You're right, we can't be saying that a language sucks because it doesn't look cool in some coding styles. Is like trying to do fancy OOP in pure scheme or common lisp without the CLOS!

However, since Java was not intended to be a scripting language, then it should never have monopolized the material of introductory programming classes like it did. I consider Java to be a very ungentle introduction to programming when compared with Python, Ruby or Scheme.

Actually it was originally designed for embedded system with limited resources [1].

[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/javah...

Actually it was designed to run on washing machines, refocused to work for browser applets, and then refocused again to deal with massive enterprise apps. I'm not sure it was ever suited to any of those tasks -- it's merely has a good enough cross section of features. One only has to look over at what Microsoft has done with C# to see that Java could be significantly less verbose.

Judging a numeral by a standard it was never designed to meet is pointless. If you want to decide whether Roman numerals are a good number system or not, see if you can hammer them onto a building. I'd say you can. I may not like working with Roman numerals for grocery receipts, but that doesn't make them bad.

    List even = new ArrayList();
    for(int i : new Integer[]{1,2,3,4}) 
        if (i%2==0) even.add(i);

Stolen shamelessly from https://gist.github.com/817635

First class functions aren't a feature particular to scripting languages. Many compiled languages also have them, such as Haskell, Ocaml, Scala, F#, C#, D, Go, Forth, Common Lisp, and so on.

> It was never designed to solve quick little problems in a few lines

C# wasn't either, but it manages to be pretty expressive for what it is. I don't think you can argue Java's design precludes it from having basic things like first class functions, when (a) C# operates in the same market and already has them, and (b) Java 7 is going to be getting them.

One of my beliefs is that we shouldn't think about "scripting languages" versus "compiled languages" and just think in terms of what would make for the ideal programming language, period. By that standard, Java is inferior to Python (to pick just one example) because it is so much more verbose and formal when accomplishing the same desired task.

Generally, typing extra stuff to make my code work isn't one of the problems I have.

x86 assembly IS terrible because string concat takes many loc. I use x86 assembly to solve problems where speed is paramount, string concatenation generally isn't one of those problems. Like lets say you need to reformat a little endian RGB pixel into a big endian RGB pixel, then that's something I'd use assembly for.

Java as a language is horrible language because the only problem it solves well is how to inflate a consulting bill, or how to waste developers time figuring out what exceptions a method throws. Only exception a method needs to throw is JavaOutTheDoor.

Solving a problem in java is like winning a race where your legs are hobbled, yes, it's an accomplishment, but wouldn't it have just been smarter to untie your legs? Java was invented in 1994 or something like that, and the scary part is it hasn't changed. Perhaps I should still code my C K&R style?

I routinely interview programmers of all kinds. Extremely few Java programmers ever make it because they simply don't know how to get simple (but non-mainstream) algorithmic tasks done.

take 2 (filter even [1..]) // take as many as you want

filter even [1..4]

I've found most of the time when you're trying to get incredibly short expressions that aren't obfuscated, haskell wins.

    (filter even? '(1 2 3 4))
    (remove-it-not 'evenp '(1 2 3 4))

    var filtered = new List<int>{1, 2, 3, 4}.FindAll(x => x % 2 == 0);

var filtered = (new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 }).Where(i => i % 2 != 0);

Not bad for a static language. :)

You can drop the parentheses, and int is inferred by the compiler:

var filtered = new[]{ 1, 2, 3, 4 }.Where( i => i % 2 != 0 );

Alternatively:

var filtered = Enumerable.Range( 1, 4 ).Where( i => i % 2 > 0 );

http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

  &1/^@4%2!#

		CollectionUtils.filter(new ArrayList(Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3, 4)), new Predicate()
		{
			public boolean evaluate(Object v)
			{
				return ((Integer) v).intValue() % 2 == 0;
			}
		});

sequence(1,2,3,4).filter(even());