Not convinced myself that this is an acceptable alternative, but: What if we just bite the bullet and say that use of an IDE (or at least a /very/ smart syntax highlighter) is so commonplace that they may be assumed? Then the editor could render properties in italics, or something. Problem solved?
It's better than m_*, you have to give me that :P On Feb 7, 3:48 pm, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: > Jess Holle wrote: > > joncfoo 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? > > > What clearly shows in the Tutorial below is that C# inherits > > Microsoft's horrible m_* naming convention from C++. > > > What is also 100% clear is that such naming conventioned are > > absolutely necessary for clarity due to the way C# does its > > properties! The fact that C# uses "object.PropertyName" for access > > necessitates that either (1) you use a goofy m_* convention for fields > > or (2) you use the capitalized form for the property (Name) and the > > uncapitalized form for the field (name). (2) by itself is actually > > way too subtle in practice -- thus necessitating the goofy m_* convention. > > To be clear, though I don't like the m_* convention, etc, there's a > bigger issue here for Java: > > The convention all Java programmers have been trained with (and that > is in all books and training materials and IDEs) is simple > lower-case (leading lowercase and camel case thereafter) names for > /both /fields and properties (yes, Java *does* have properties; > JavaBeans may need improvement, but they're there). > > Thus mixing Java's longstanding naming conventions with use of the "." > operator for property access is a recipe for confusion. > > > Instead if Java does properties I hope it can just use "->" instead of > > "." -- making it 100% clear that this is a property rather than field > > access and leaving no such ambiguities. > > > As for C#'s syntax for declaring properties -- I don't see any big > > step forward here except in the case of auto-implemented properties. > > Sure there's slightly less typing and you don't repeat yourself on > > getName() and setName(), but there's no big win in other cases. > > > Of course the auto-implemented property example raises other issues in > > that once you need to move away from an auto-implemented property to > > one backed by a field you have to introduce the field and examine all > > usages of the property within your class that really should have been > > using the field. At this point once again you're back to m_* > > conventions if you want any sort of clarity in the code. > > > Overall, I certainly wouldn't say Java should just copy C#'s > > properties! This is not rubber-stampable. > > > -- > > Jess Holle > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
