> Maybe I'm unique, but
> sometimes I find that Java (as well as other languages) gets in my way rather
> than letting me solve the problem at hand in a natural way.
You're not alone in that belief. I've heard several people comment about how easy it is to code Smalltalk when exploring new solutions.
>For example, one
> thing I would have liked to see is the ability to invoke methods by the same
> name either via static class methods or via instance methods of objects
> (where
> appropriate and useful, of course). I don't have enough experience with Java
> to know if that's possible, though I suspect it would be difficult at least.
Static methods are a necessary evil in OO languages and should be avoided when possible. The entire Java Math class is a perfect example of poor design because it's just a bunch of static methods. It would have been *much* simpler to make numbers objects and allow -1.abs() type semantics. Anyways, my main point is that statics exist in Java to make certain things easier, not to allow the type of thing you describe.
David
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
