Because often 'static language' is used in place of 'Java'; pretty sure those languages are much more succinct and readable than Java is, thus they're not as likely to become 'large' codebases. I'm probably wrong though.
Whenever I recall programming in Java though, I remember highly verbose, boilerplate-ridden codebases, and bits of code that are little more than abstractions for bits of code underneath them (with unit tests alongside them that test bit of code A calls functions B and C, which of course has no value whatsoever).
Nowadays I do Javascript, much better. Today I frowned upon a colleague who is used to Objective-C who proposed writing documentation. Pfff.
But this is a very big problem. It seems to me that the popularity of dynamic languages recently is almost entirely driven by Java backlash.
So developers with limited experience encounter some big "enterprise" Java code base and recoil in horror. Instead of making the deduction that enterprise Java is terrible, they jump all the way to compile time types being horrible.
Whenever I recall programming in Java though, I remember highly verbose, boilerplate-ridden codebases, and bits of code that are little more than abstractions for bits of code underneath them (with unit tests alongside them that test bit of code A calls functions B and C, which of course has no value whatsoever).
Nowadays I do Javascript, much better. Today I frowned upon a colleague who is used to Objective-C who proposed writing documentation. Pfff.