begin quoting Christopher Smith as of Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:57:20PM -0700: > Paul G. Allen wrote: [snip] > > OK, you got me there. I missed "operators" and threw in methods. :) > > (but as Stewart pointed out, this is a good thing) > > I wasn't debating whether it was a good thing. In general these are > trade offs. My point was that this feature, along with the others I > mentioned, allows for a unique capability that is nice to have.
I emphatically agree with the trade-offs. As for "nice to have", well, it probably depends who you are. I seem to spend a lot of time picking up the pieces and wading through stuff that seemed "nice to have" at one time, so my viewpoint is apt to be a bit... sour. [snip] > > I have not found it hard to use at all. In fact, I've found it much > > easier than C++. > > Java's generics are much easier to use than C++'s templates. They are, > unfortunately, quite limited. Still too much like C++'s templates, I feel. Can't say I could've come up with anything clearer myself, alas. I fear that it may be the cleanest way to do what's being done. [snip] > If you can show me how to do policy based resource management in Java > (i.e. no "finally" blocks in the application code), I might agree with > you. Otherwise, arguments that Java is "better" than C++ are kind of > irrelevant to whether Java has this capability. What do you mean by "policy based resource management" here? Not using try...finally in Java would be like requiring allocation of objects on the stack and not using destructors or copy constructors in C++. Some features are there for a reason, not added as an afterthought. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
