User user = new User();
user.setName("Alice");
user.setAge(30);
user.setEmail("alice@example.com");
user.setActive(true);

repo.save(user)

var user = new User("Alice", 30, "alice@example...

Every week, some developer crawls out of their legacy codebase to announce that Java is “too verbose.” They’ll tweet about it. They’ll mention it in code reviews. They’ll use it as an excuse for why their 200-line method exists.

But here’s the thing: when I actually look at their code, it’s not Java’s fault. It’s theirs.

---

The Real Problem? Your Fingers

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s the kind of code people write and then blame the language for:

User user = new User();
user.setName("Alice");
user.setAge(30);
user.setEmail("alice@example.com");
user.setActive(true);

repo.save(user)

Six lines to create one object. Now here’s the same thing written by someone who’s actually read a release note since 2015:

var user = new User("Alice", 30, "alice@example.com", true);
repo.save(user)

Or hell, if you’re not storing the reference:

repo.save(new User("Alice", 30, "alice@example.com", true));

One line. Done. You wrote six lines to accomplish what one could do – and you have the audacity to call the language verbose?

You Are The Boilerplate

Let’s talk about the real sources of “verbosity” in Java codebases. Spoiler: it’s you.

Still Writing Getters and Setters in 2025

If you’re manually typing out getX() and setX() methods in 2025, you’re not a professional developer — you’re a human code generator. Records have been around since Java 14. They’re stable. They’re production-ready. Use them:

public record User(String name, int age, String email, boolean active) {}

That’s it. That’s the entire class. You get constructors, getters, equals(), hashCode(), and toString() for free. But sure, keep writing 50 lines of boilerplate and complaining about “verbosity.”

Avoid var Because “It’s confusing”

No mate, it’s not confusing, but you know what is? this:

Map<String, List<ComplexBusinessObject>> groupedData = complexService.getGroupedData();

vs this:

var groupedData = complexService.getGroupedData();

This type is right there in the method name. If your method names are so bad that removing the explicit type declaration makes code “unreadable”, your problem isn’t var – it’s your inability to write clear code.

Pattern Overload for Trivial Logic

We’ve all seen it: the UserFactory, the UserBuilder, the UserManager, the UserService, the UserHelper, the UserUtil. 5 classes to accomplish what should be a constructor and 2 methods.

Design patterns exist to solve actual problems, not to make your codebase look “enterprise”. If you’re creating a factory pattern to instantiate a POJO with 3 fields, you’re not writing good Java – you’re writing a resume.

Ignoring Modern Language Features

Java has evolved. Significantly. But some developers are still writing like it’s 2005:

• Switch expressions (Java 14): Clean pattern matching instead of verbose if-else chains
• Text blocks (Java 15): Multiline strings without the nightmare of concatenation
• Pattern matching for instanceof (Java 16): No more casting after type checks
• Sealed classes (Java 17): Controlled inheritance hierarchies
• Record patterns (Java 21): Destructuring records directly in pattern matches

These aren’t experimental features. They’re here. They work. And they make Java significantly less verbose. But you’d know that if you’d read a changelog in the last 5 years.

Modern Java Actually Slaps

Let’s be real: Java from version 14 onwards is a completely different beast than Java 8. Hell, it’s a different species than Java 5.

Here’s what you can do now:

// Records for data classes
public record Product(String name, double price) {}

// Pattern matching with switch expressions
String describe(Object obj) {
return switch (obj) {
case Integer i -> "Number: " + i;
case String s -> "String: " + s;
case Product(var name, var price) -> "Product: " + name + " with price $" + price;
case null, default -> "Unknown";
}
}

// Text blocks for readable multiline strings
var json = """
{
"name": "John",
"age": 30,
"city": "New York"
}
""";

// Streams and lambdas for functional-style operations
var adults = users.stream()
.filter(u -> u.age() >= 18)
.toList();

Is this verbose? No. Is it clear? Yes. Is it modern? Yes. The language has grown up. Have you?

The Verbosity is Coming From Inside the House

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most “verbose Java” isn’t a language problem — it’s a skill problem.

You’re verbose because:

• You learned Java once in 2010 and never updated your knowledge
• You cargo-cult patterns you saw in ancient Spring codebases
• You think “enterprise” means “uses as many classes as possible”
• You’re genuinely unaware that Java has had major improvements in the last decade
• You’re too lazy to refactor but not too lazy to complain

The language gave you tools. You just refuse to use them.

“ But Python/JavaScript/Go Is Less Verbose! “

Oh, here we go again, the grass-is-greener crowd.

Yes, Python lets you write user = User("Alice, 30) without type annotations. Congratulations, you’ve discovered dynamic typing. Now wait until runtime to find out you passed a string where an integer should be, and enjoy debugging production.

JavaScript? Sure, it’s concise:

const user = { name: "Alice", age: 30 }

It’s also a chaotic hellscape where typeof null === "object" and everything is secretly a string. Hope you enjoy "2" + 2 === "22" and 3 different ways to declare variables depending on which year you learned the language.

Go is intentionally minimal, which is great until you need generics (oh wait, they just added those in 2022 after a decade of people copy-pasting code), or want a robust standard library for anything beyond network servers.

Every language makes tradeoffs. Java chose type safety, backwards compatibility, and explicit contracts. If that’s “verbose” to you, you’re really saying “I don’t want to think about types” – which is fine! Just don’t pretend it’s a language flaw when it’s design philosophy you disagree with.

The AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean Strawman

Let’s address the elephant in the room: Spring Framework’s infamous AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean.

Yes, it exists. Yes, it’s ridiculous. No, you don’t write that – Spring does. And you probably never interact with it directly.

Blaming Java for Spring’s internal implementation details is like blaming English because legal documents are hard to read. The language isn’t the problem; it’s what certain frameworks built with it.

In fact, Modern Spring Boot applications are concise and straightforward to understand as hell, like, what average developer who’s worked with REST frameworks wouldn’t understand this???

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/users")
@RequiredArgsConstructor
public class ApiController {
private final UserRepository userRepository;

public UserController(UserRepository userRepository) {
this.userRepository = userRepository;
}

@GetMapping("/{id}")
public User getUser(@PathVariable Long id) {
Optional<User> user = userRepository.findById(id);
return userRepository.findById(id)
.orElseThrow(() -> new ResponseStatusException(HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND, "User not found"));
}
}

Where’s the verbosity?? Where are the XML files?? Where’s the abstract factory singleton proxy whatever the hell that is?

Oh right, it’s 2025, not 2008.

Your Null Checks Are Embarrassing And Shameful

Speaking of outdated practices, let’s talk about this crime against humanity:

public String getUserEmail(User user) {
if (user != null) {
if (user.getEmail() != null) {
return user.getEmail();
}
}

return null;
}

Four lines, two null checks, one return value. This is what happens when developers learned defensive programming in 2002 and stopped learning.

Here’s the modern approach:

public Optional<String> getUserEmail(User user) {
return Optional.ofNullable(user).map(User::getEmail);
}

Or if you’re using records and keeping things null-safe by design, you don’t even need Optional:

public String getUserEmail(User user) {
return user.email(); // Records can't be null by design
}

But sure, keep writing defensive null checks everywhere and then complaining that Java is “too safe” and therefore “verbose.”

The Real Verbosity is Your Code Reviews

You wanna know what’s truly verbose? That’s right, your code reviews.

“This method is too long” – it’s 8 lines, Karen.

“We should extract this into a separate class” – it’s a single calculation used once.

“Let’s make this more enterprise” – this is a startup, not Boeing.

The obsession with over-abstraction, over-engineering, and “clean code” taken to religious extremes has caused more verbosity than the Java language ever did.

Uncle Bob didn’t say every method should be 3 lines, did he? He said code should be readable. Sometimes that’s 3 lines. Sometimes that’s 20. Learn the difference.

Conclusion: Learn or Leave

Java isn’t verbose. Your mindset is. How about doing us a favor by leaving to save us some time from re-reading your code if you refuse to grow your 2005 mindset.

If you’re still writing Java like it’s the era of XML config files and AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBeans, that’s on you. Modern Java is expressive, concise, and powerful – but only if you actually bother to write modern Java.

So either update your skills, or go back to your build.xml file where you belong. Some of us have one-liners to write.

---

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a 47-line “service layer” to refactor into 3 lines of actual logic