Just when I thought I had developed enough of an active dislike of
Oracle...
What is this feeling so sudden and new?
Starting the moment I laid eyes on you.
My pulse is rushing!
My head is reeling!
My face is flushing!
What is this feeling?
Fervid as a flame.
Does it have a name?
Y
It's getting REALLY old to hear the old "Java is on x billion phones",
though Thomas Kurian pulled out another variation this year with "...
31 times more Java-enabled mobile phones shipping every year than
Apple iPhone and Google Android combined". Wake up, Microsoft is about
to go all-in as well
Don't worry, you'll get over it. :-)
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:45, Carl Jokl wrote:
> Just when I thought I had developed enough of an active dislike of
> Oracle...
>
> What is this feeling so sudden and new?
> Starting the moment I laid eyes on you.
> My pulse is rushing!
> My head is reeling!
Just listened the episode while driving to work. Hilarious !! :-) MANY
thanks indeed for these 5 years. And at least that much more come.
Is there a video somewhere to actually see it ?
By any chance, is there something planned for Devoxx ?
Respectfully,
Jan
--
You received this message becau
I have to say, Oracle puts on some sweet parties. I had a blast at the
Oracle Appreciation event.
Otherwise, logistically:
- Having this many people at the conference created some annoying
logistical issues (I registered late and found it impossible to find a
hotel)
- JavaOne feels like OpenWorld
Right, but what about:
final x = "Hello, World!"?
There's no type there, but the type of "Hello, World!" isn't visible
in this, either, and this is legal today:
int length = "Hello, World!".length()
On Sep 23, 2:15 am, JodaStephen wrote:
> As one of multiple independent inventors of the diamon
Ah, yep, the 'switch handlers' around concept. It has some merit. It's
not, however, an argument against exceptions, only against java's
syntax for them. In a hypothetical world this could be made legal:
try {
FileInputStream in = new FileInputStream();
catch (FileNotFoundException e)
Apparently James also gave an interview to "The Basement Coders" podcast not
that long ago which is supposedly an intertesting listen. Might be worth a
listen...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email
The majority of java programmers have standard rules that ALL blocks
must be braced.
The *vast* majority of java programmers have standard rules that ANY
non-trivial block must be braced, and will only keep unbraced the
simplest of ifs (without elses), whiles, and fors.
That would mean a very ver
... but you keep having to work around an "Either". This seems like a
very bad idea, because now code I write has to care about it. After
all, if I make a method that takes a String, I can't then call this
method if I have an Either[String, Exception].
On Sep 23, 1:44 am, Josh Suereth wrote:
> Yo
Reinier,
Without rewrapping you would get into situations where:
* you call foo() and foo() calls bar().
* bar() throws IOException
* foo() doesn't, via some syntax like foo() spits IOException, foo() rethrow
IOException, etc.
Now at your current point you decide that you know better than foo(),
Reinier,
Sure you can:
for (String s: either.left())
otherMethod(s);
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> ... but you keep having to work around an "Either". This seems like a
> very bad idea, because now code I write has to care about it. After
> all, if I make a me
On Sep 23, 9:54 am, Jan Goyvaerts™ wrote:
> Just listened the episode while driving to work. Hilarious !!
Me, too. Funniest thing I've heard all day. Well done on five years
and I've been listening since ep. 8 or 9.
(Don't give up the day jobs though.)
Vince.
--
You received this message be
Yes... In such a language, it should be "easy" to wrap methods that do not
use either or apply them within the either using map rather than Flatmap
operation. (different names are common here too).
Now, there is a distinction here in terms of what should be captured in an
either vs. handled in an
You mentioned it could possibly short circuit, but then theorized that this
couldn't possibly be the case. I would call this totally incorrect. I can
mention the possibility that C++ is my favored language and then derisively
snort.
Also, the key here is that with either, you string together a s
Surely "having to care about it" is the whole point here!
isn't that the entire justification of *checked* exceptions... that they
force you to "care about it"?
Either is an alternative way to insist upon such caring, and it has the
advantages of being composable and not perverting your type signa
I favour the use of checked exceptions but this proposal seems like an
interesting compromise.
It would be nice if the compiler (or IDE or static code analysis tool)
warned me when I'm calling a method which throws a 'private Exception'
so I can decide what to do about them.
On Sep 23, 1:28 am, R
I modified javac a while ago to convert checked exception errors into
warnings, since I basically think these things don't belong in a
mandated type system, but rather in a flexible tool-chain on top:
http://coffeecokeandcode.blogspot.com/2009/08/tweaking-javac-leniency.html
On Sep 23, 3:23 pm, "h
On 9/23/10 02:09 , Spencer Uresk wrote:
- JavaOne feels like OpenWorld's little brother
I think that we should especially focus on this. The numbers that I know
are: 41,000 total attendees; in the past J1 was about 15,000 (?);
supposing the figure didn't change this year, this means that 26,
Ditto for the beer ...
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> 2010/9/22 Cédric Beust ♔ mailto:ced...@beust.com>>
>
>
>
>>What part of "99%" did you miss? :-)
>>
>>Look on the Android forums and compare the number of people who
>>co
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> On 9/23/10 02:09 , Spencer Uresk wrote:
>
>> - JavaOne feels like OpenWorld's little brother
>>
>
> I think that we should especially focus on this. The numbers that I know
> are: 41,000 total attendees; i
On 9/23/10 09:48 , Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Fabrizio Giudici
mailto:fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>>
wrote:
On 9/23/10 02:09 , Spencer Uresk wrote:
- JavaOne feels like OpenWorld's little brother
I think that we should especially focus on th
Pointless noise.
On Sep 23, 12:20 pm, Ricky Clarkson wrote:
> Reinier,
>
> Sure you can:
>
> for (String s: either.left())
> otherMethod(s);
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... but you keep having to work around an "Either". This seems like a
> > ve
Why is it awkward? It keeps the API streamlined: You call fileOpen,
and you get a FileHandle. When things do not proceed along the
"essential path", you get an exception. Which is documented.
Checked exceptions aren't any less useful just because "some people"
decide to call it a "shadow type syst
Obviously, when sneakyThrows becomes part of the language, you remove
the compile-time restriction that you can't catch checked exceptions
that nothing in the try body throws. We're discussing an idea here, I
didn't feel the need to submit an entire spec.
On Sep 23, 12:14 pm, Ricky Clarkson wrote
The term "shadow type system" has been used by such C++ luminaries as Herb
Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup and Scott Meyers.
However, this is not the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. It's an
observation that the very people who shaped the C++ language and added
exception declarations have the
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Obviously, when sneakyThrows becomes part of the language, you remove
> the compile-time restriction that you can't catch checked exceptions
> that nothing in the try body throws. We're discussing an idea here, I
> didn't feel the need
Because there's use in having the compiler be your pair programmer.
It's nice when your compiler tells you: Hey, uh, did you think about
FileNotFoundException?
I'm just asking for the ability to say: Yes, I did, thanks for
reminding me - without having to jump through bizarre hoops like you
have t
What the heck? First you say this is not the fallacy of appeal to
authority, and then... you appeal to authority some more.
If you don't mind me riding this horse all the way to the logical
conclusion: If you're looking at Bjarne Stroustrup as a paragon of
language design advice, you're a very str
On Sep 23, 5:09 am, Spencer Uresk wrote:
>
> - Seems like a lot of OSGi / Jigsaw animosity again.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Last year it was pretty bad
actually;
http://sellmic.com/blog/2009/06/11/classpath-hell-just-froze-over/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> However, this is not the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. It's
> an observation that the very people who shaped the C++ language and added
> exception declarations have themselves declared that it was a bad decision.
>
The origina
2010/9/23 Cédric Beust ♔
>
>
> There was only positive thing that came out of C++...
>
>
> Ah come on, now, that's just bad trolling. I'm not a big fan of C++ these
> days (I used to) but its influence and the plethora of ideas and language
> designs that it generated is being used in new languag
So when you change a method's throws clause the compiler won't alert you to
change the callers.
Yes, we're discussing an idea. The things that seem obvious showstoppers to
me you seem to think are just my being picky. Square wheels are an idea
too.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Reinier Zwits
So checked "exceptions" are to handle situations that, although not ideal,
are still far from exceptional?
On 23 September 2010 20:21, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Because there's use in having the compiler be your pair programmer.
> It's nice when your compiler tells you: Hey, uh, did you thin
Indeed. The try block is the 'happy path' but any other path is quite
normal too.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> So checked "exceptions" are to handle situations that, although not ideal,
> are still far from exceptional?
>
>
> On 23 September 2010 20:21, Reinier Zwitserl
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Because there's use in having the compiler be your pair programmer.
> It's nice when your compiler tells you: Hey, uh, did you think about
> FileNotFoundException?
>
> I'm just asking for the ability to say: Yes, I did, thanks for
> rem
I was wondering about the other JavaFX sessions at JavaOne: Do they still
present something with the script syntax ? (If so, who would still go there
?) Or are they all about the to-be-expected API ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" gr
Most sessions are using the JavaFX Script 1.3 syntax, some sessions by
Oracle employees show an early version of the upcoming JavaFX Java APIs, but
these are very likely to change before they'll be published in early access
(Q1 or Q2 2011).
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Jan Goyvaerts™ wrote:
>
Yes, if you remove a checked exception from a method, then callers
that handle this exception no longer get the benefit of a compiler
error. However, removing checked exceptions from API is somewhat rare.
Also, if you perform the 'remove this exception' refactor with a
compiler tool instead of by e
How's that different? The only thing you just told me is that you want
to turn "forgot to do something with checked exception" from error to
warning, which is close to a no-op in my book - I can delve into the
eclipse compile settings and change a plethora of problems around from
error to warning t
Interesting content but -hard- to listen to. Coffee shop recording with
sub-par recording gear that picked up WAY too much of the background noise.
Very good discussion tho.
--
Pull me down under...
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <
miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Appa
On 9/23/10 13:13 , Ricky Clarkson wrote:
Indeed. The try block is the 'happy path' but any other path is quite
normal too.
+1
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
fab
It's true, when compared to the C++ implementation, checked Exceptions in
Java are a considerable improvement. The list of complaints levelled against
the "feature" in C++ is exceptional!
If you want references as to the Exception saga in C++, then your best bet
is the "Exceptional C++" books. Mu
Exceptions as flow control, as an alternate return type, specified slightly
outside of the method signature...
Perhaps we're going about things the wrong way, instead of needing a
@sneakyThrows annotation, maybe what Java really needs is to rename the
throws keyword so that it better reflects the
Ultimately i believe this discussion only exists because people just want to
pretend that the wrong ( in this case exceptional) things dont happen in
their code. They do not want to even try and attempt to address exceptions
and prefer to let some top level handler take care of things. Im saying th
> Nevertheless, checked exceptions (even when handled better than C++) are
> still a lie. Not to the compiler but to the developer, which is far worse!
> They're a lie about the full range of exceptions a function might throw,
> and they're a lie about how well a caller might deal with such an ex
Gee, a guy starts three podcasts and now he's all audio
engineery... :)
On Sep 24, 8:23 am, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Interesting content but -hard- to listen to. Coffee shop recording with
> sub-par recording gear that picked up WAY too much of the background noise.
>
> Very good discussion tho.
Primitive overflow is a JVM feature, partly caused by the behaviour of
underlying hardware. The only workaround (in any language on the platform)
is to use BigInteger/BigDecimal. Scala only helps here insofar as it allows
you to use these types with conventional arithmetic operators.
I wouldn't
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> How's that different? The only thing you just told me is that you want
> to turn "forgot to do something with checked exception" from error to
> warning, which is close to a no-op in my book - I can delve into the
> eclipse compile sett
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <
miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimately i believe this discussion only exists because people just want
> to pretend that the wrong ( in this case exceptional) things dont happen in
> their code.
>
I thought it was API designers typicall
1) No news about the Java store.
2) No news about ASF and the JCK. By the way, what's wrong with them
just saying, "No, you're not going to get it because we earn revenue
from this."
3) Interesting JavaFX script is being dropped. But not even a straw
man proposal of what the java syntax to the
So in other words by statement that developers dont want to deal with
excecptions because its more work is right ? and since most libraries throw
lots of exceptions using them because a game of catch this here, handle that
there which makes it difficult or a pain. With such cases handling checked
c
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <
miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So in other words by statement that developers dont want to deal with
> excecptions because its more work is right ? and since most libraries throw
> lots of exceptions using them because a game of catch this
On Sep 24, 11:56 am, "hayden.paul.jo...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> 1) No news about the Java store.
I think we'll chalk it up as 'embarrassing failure' with a small press
release remarking its death.
> 2) No news about ASF and the JCK. By the way, what's wrong with them
> just saying, "No, you're not
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Josh Berry wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <
> miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So in other words by statement that developers dont want to deal with
>> excecptions because its more work is right ? and since most libraries t
I attended JavaFX 2.0 session today and someone asked what to do if
their company wanted to start a javafx project on Monday. No really
good answer to that since fx script will be of no use once 2.0
arrives. The fx team said that fx script is open source and could be
brought forward, but after eva
My read on this answer was that you'd be best finding something else
to spend your time on until around March/April 2011 -- at which point FX
/may /be worth revisiting in an early access capacity.
If that's at the top of your "to-do" list, then that's a pickle :-)
--
Jess Holle
On 9/23/2010
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 04:45, Steven Herod wrote:
> On Sep 24, 11:56 am, "hayden.paul.jo...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
> > 1) No news about the Java store.
>
> I think we'll chalk it up as 'embarrassing failure' with a small press
> release remarking its death.
>
> > 2) No news about ASF and the JCK.
I did a talk at JavaOne that covered some of the Java syntax, as well
as brief examples in Scala, Clojure, JRuby and Groovy.
Check it out my website:
http://jonathangiles.net/blog/?p=916
-- Jonathan Giles
On Sep 23, 6:56 pm, "hayden.paul.jo...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> 1) No news about the Java store
It boils down to noise rather than laziness. We spend all day looking at
the code, we don't need it to be even more bloated.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Miroslav Pokorny <
miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimately i believe this discussion only exists because people just want
> to pr
60 matches
Mail list logo
