Been asking that question for a very long time myself, the answers usually revolve around:
- Denial and lack of understanding/exposure to a component model (Example: http://weblogs.java.net/blog/hansmuller/archive/2007/01/property_syntax.html). - Conservatism and NIH politics (Example: http://java.sun.com/docs/white/delegates.html). - Complexity and a painful devotion to backwards compatibility. - Bureaucracy and a celebration/cultivation of ceremony/theory over concrete/pragmatic. ...though it's been getting slightly less unpopular to point these things out over the last couple of years. /Casper On 7 Feb., 02:17, joncfoo <jonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > What's wrong with syntactic sugar and how is it holding it back? The > properties that C# sports are simple, concise, and easy on the eyes. > Why isn't the Java language picking up at least these basic features? > > On Feb 6, 1:16 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "It is just syntactic sugar" gets you perl. > > > That's what's holding it back. > > > On Feb 6, 7:24 pm, joncfoo <jonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Regarding properties: > > > What is holding them back from implementing properties like they are > > > in C# since it could be implemented as syntactic sugar. > > > > Plenty of examples > > > here:http://www.csharp-station.com/Tutorials/Lesson10.aspx > > > > It would be nice to traverse large object graphs w/o having the ugly > > > getters. > > > > E.g. > > > > // before > > > obj1.getObject2().getObject3().getObject4().setSomeProperty(1234); > > > > // after > > > obj1.object2.object3.object4.someProperty = 1234; > > > > It is just syntactic sugar... > > > > Jonathan > > > > On Feb 5, 9:47 pm, Bill Robertson <billrobertso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 11:58 am, gafter <neal.gaf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Although I believe the syntax is not ideal in its current form, I'm > > > > > not going to spend more time on it until Sun formally decides they > > > > > want to move forward with it, and that's not going to happen in JDK7. > > > > > I certainly understand that position, but I think its worth > > > > considering syntax, even if only in a passive manner (i.e. just think > > > > about it). I've been dealing with C++ recently, and man oh man* I > > > > forgot what a pain that was after not having touched it in so long. > > > > Generics nudged Java syntax in this direction, and the little bits and > > > > bobs of closure syntax that I've seen so far (no specific proposal > > > > mind you), have left me with that same feeling. I hate to try to > > > > suggest answers when I don't believe I have good ones, but I also hate > > > > to just complain w/o offering suggestions. So I would like to offer > > > > up the suggestion of considering keywords rather than oddball > > > > symbols. e.g. lambda v.s. => > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > *Not to be confused with, "OhmanOh Man," a lesser known super hero. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
