2 lines do stuff, everything else is fluff, and it is considered prettier.
BTW: I did not run this specific code, but dropping the buffer is likely to make this code take much, much more CPU (unless HotSpot is much better these days than it was in 2010 when I last used it). That's another pillar of Java culture - care not about performance.
Disclaimer: I didn't test this, and any mention of performance requires testing, rather than reasoning. I don't have a Java compiler handy anymore, or I would test it.
I'm a big believer in benchmarking before saying things, but I think we could skip the benchmarks when asking the question "does 1 4096-byte read or 4096 1-byte reads complete faster".
I would agree ... except that I've seen cases in which it didn't make a difference.
e.g. if the File implementation had an internal buffer (C stdio's "FILE " does), and the read from that* buffer was inlined (from my past experience up to date as of early 2011, HotSpot doesn't, but LuaJIT does), it might not make any difference.
Seriously, LuaJIT does things I've never thought I'd see a compiler (JIT or AOT) for any language (dynamic or statically typed) do. I used to reply to "sufficiently smart compiler" with "one hasn't appeared yet, despite at least 3 decades of waiting". But LuaJIT has appeared.
... And here's a fine example of Java culture.
2 lines do stuff, everything else is fluff, and it is considered prettier.
BTW: I did not run this specific code, but dropping the buffer is likely to make this code take much, much more CPU (unless HotSpot is much better these days than it was in 2010 when I last used it). That's another pillar of Java culture - care not about performance.
Disclaimer: I didn't test this, and any mention of performance requires testing, rather than reasoning. I don't have a Java compiler handy anymore, or I would test it.