Who claimed that it was the #1 missing feature?
I think it's the #1 valued feature, though.
A feature's value is:
feature's utility
---
feature's impact
Utility is small, but gets a minor boost because java not having
a .join() method is actively costing java goodwill in the grea
> When folks are arguing over which language features need to be in java, I
> can't help but think "Why Bother? Just use Scala" (as was coined by Alex
> Cruise). My only wish is for a standard closure-like collections library
> that all the other languages for the JVM can design to, and therefore
Josh,
While I agree with you, I think sun can't ignore the fact that they need a
java that will last 10+ (or more specifically the VM). I personally plan to
punt Java as much as possible in favor of languages like JavaFX, Groovy and
Scala. With the new modularity, I see this becoming an even eas
Is that really the number one missing feature in Java? :)
Here's my take on Java 7 and what's going in (and isn't). [keep in
mind, while I'm a Sun employee this is still just my opinion].
7 is Java's SnowLeopard. Java 7 isn't about flashy new features. It's
about cleaning up infrastructure a
I've just analyzed how language and library changes would improve my
source. it was just a ten minute grep-and-sed exercise.
I've quickly scanned though a selected group of projects, which share
dependencies.
Of 2k .java files, the most imported classes are:
java.util.List (imported in 22.51% of
On 4 Mar 2009, at 18:46, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> what does String.join do?
Joins strings together using a separator. Just like every other
language in the last 20 years. :)
The google collections guys have a nice implementation, which accepts
Objects as well as Strings and makes nice use
im guessing it would fit better on the Collections class instead of
String (and on Arrays for, well, arrays)
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Josh Suereth wrote:
> http://commons.apache.org/lang/apidocs/org/apache/commons/lang/StringUtils.html#join(java.util.Collection,%20char)
>
> I think this i
http://commons.apache.org/lang/apidocs/org/apache/commons/lang/StringUtils.html#join(java.util.Collection,%20char)
I think this is something like what Reinier wants to see in String.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
>
> what does String.join do?
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:30
what does String.join do?
On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> Yeah, breaking changes - no chance, at least not for java7.
>
> But, there are plenty of API things that would be great to have, and
> are forwards, backwards, migration, upwards, downwards, sideways, and
> any o
Yeah, breaking changes - no chance, at least not for java7.
But, there are plenty of API things that would be great to have, and
are forwards, backwards, migration, upwards, downwards, sideways, and
any other direction - compatible.
For example, String.join. I mean, really, now. How can java mak
Perhaps just making Cloneable and Serializable annotations, while
deprecating the interfaces?
Although the interfaces will probably not be removed before 1.8 or
(dare I say it) 2.0, it would at least encourage using annotations the
way they are meant to be used, and interfaces as, well, int
Sadly I kinda expected that :( Still one can dream.
...and then Buffy staked Edward. The End.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> You are unlikely to ever get a breaking change into core java. On the
> other hand, having modules in the language and JRE opens up some new
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Project Coin is all about small language changes for Java 7, whats the
> changes of getting a project setup for "small interface/object
> changes" (although these could be breaking..) to fix some
> reallly annoying marker
Actually, you probably wouldnt want to remove it as it does the shallow clone..
...and then Buffy staked Edward. The End.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> * Add clone() to the Cloneable interface, and make Object's
> implementation abstract (or remove it compleately!) -
14 matches
Mail list logo
