On 8 September 2010 14:35, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The type is "some class with a + method". That really is all that > matters. > > That's true when determining that the code will compile, but not for > determining its meaning. My meaning really is just "Add 2 to this bunch of things that can have 2 added to them" Any more is second-guessing what you think the compiler needs, but it certainly isn't helping comprehension I genuinely feel that it gets in the way to state, at that point in the code: "Thou shalt use this code with integers, and only integers, and integers shall be the only type that is used" > > So I could define a `*` method on my type that fires missiles, it's true! > > I could also define a `multiply` method that does the same thing, why is > > this any less evil that the well-known symbol for multiplication? > > The name * is not important. This is not about operator overloading. > My original example would be equivalent if I had used multiply. True, but now it's a problem in any language, and certainly isn't limited to closures. > >> You won't find me arguing against adding closures to Java! > > > > Wait until you see the syntax for checked exceptions :) > > I received and reported bugs on Gafter's BGGA prototype before it was > released (Gafter fixed them all amazingly quickly, an inspiration). I > doubt I can be shocked! > > > I think that java does need an IDE, if only to avoid a lot of the > > repetition. > > accessors/constructor injecton/equals/hashcode spring to mind here... > > I don't actually find myself writing or reading as much of that as the > blogosphere would make out. Perhaps that's because I'm not using JEE, > I don't know. Having to work in something like e.g. Spring definitely compounds the problem here... and it does seem to be so very ubiquitous :) A large part of my concern over Java is not just the language itself, but some of the designs and techniques that the language seems to encourage, such as JavaBeans. It *is* possible to do better in Java: http://codemonkeyism.com/generation-java-programming-style/ but the language is very set in its ways, and many developers are just adverse to any change. -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@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.
