Like I academically understand disliking Java but this just makes no sense.
I agree C++ is bloated in a 'just make it a setting' / 'add this feature' / 'kitchen sink' sort of way.
I agree Java is bloated in a boilerplate, empty directories, maybe except for another directory, 'oh god the boilerplate' sort of way.
Interesting. Can you expand on this, explain more? I honestly don't know what you mean or are referring to -- and I'm a heavy modern c++ advocate -- but suspect if I did it might expand my mindset/viewpoint a bit. :)
I think a lot of people wish it had stayed at say C++7, a mature C superset, but that's enough now. I probably should have said 'I understand' rather than 'I agree' - I don't feel strongly, I don't use either of them.
But if you are talking about the source code itself, then things are quite different.
I'll answer your question with a question: Have you seen https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... ? :)
I'm guess that to those of us who remember when Java came out, "FizzBuzz: EE" is what we think of when we think of Java. :P
In Java I have to type a bazillion characters to get anything done! And make all these useless directories and files and InterfaceClassFactoryProtocolStreamingSerializer BS. And worry about how that executes.
C++? No bloat*, just speed
*Yes, there's some _optional_ bloat. But compared to Java? no contest.
You have to do literally none of these things to write working Java.
I can see that being used as a reasonable argument for bloat.
This is just incorrect use/understanding of Java’s execution model. It does have a runtime, but it is definitely not a VirtualBox VM.
The bytecode interpreter for Java (and other similar languages) is literally called a Virtual Machine, due to the way it functions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_virtual_machine
It would seem your understanding of the Java execution model is flawed.
