light weight types
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: Putting passwords in a properties file?
Next: Interview
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 20:55 Lew wrote: > Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> What syntax would you use then? > > RedGrittyBrick wrote: >> List of Integer > > It was hard enough achieving compatibility with the introduction of > 'enum' as a keyword. We don't want to be introducing COBOLish syntax > through new keywords if we can avoid it. New syntax is new syntax that makes the syntax more complex. I do not think adding new keywords is less complex than reusing existing keywords for a different purpose. "of" obviously does not fit well with Java, because it is not a C/C++/Java/JavaScript/C# syntax family keyword. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 21:57 Tom Anderson wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, RedGrittyBrick wrote: >> Lew wrote: >>> Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>>> What syntax would you use then? >>> RedGrittyBrick wrote: >>>> List of Integer >>> >>> It was hard enough achieving compatibility with the introduction of >>> 'enum' as a keyword. We don't want to be introducing COBOLish syntax >>> through new keywords if we can avoid it. >> >> Thats it! I'm taking you off my mailing list of JOBOL announcements. >> So there! >> >> Hmm, >> private Map of something that extends Integer and a List of something; > > Under ECMA standard COBOJ, that should actually be: > > private Map of something that extends Integer and a List of something else; List(Of Something) Dictionary(Of Something1, Something2) are both valid types in VB.NET .... Arne
From: Lew on 5 Oct 2009 22:38 Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>> What syntax would you use then? RedGrittyBrick wrote: >>> List of Integer Lew wrote: >> It was hard enough achieving compatibility with the introduction of >> 'enum' as a keyword. We don't want to be introducing COBOLish syntax >> through new keywords if we can avoid it. Arne Vajhøj wrote: > New syntax is new syntax that makes the syntax more complex. Thank goodness that we don't need to use any new syntax to express parametric types, then. -- Lew
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 22:45 Lew wrote: > Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>>> What syntax would you use then? > > RedGrittyBrick wrote: >>>> List of Integer > > Lew wrote: >>> It was hard enough achieving compatibility with the introduction of >>> 'enum' as a keyword. We don't want to be introducing COBOLish syntax >>> through new keywords if we can avoid it. > > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> New syntax is new syntax that makes the syntax more complex. > > Thank goodness that we don't need to use any new syntax to express > parametric types, then. <T> is new syntax. Just not new keywords. And it definitely added complexity - just consider how many questions are asked about it here. It also added benefits though. It is definitely possible to argue that the benefits justify the added complexity. Arne
From: Lew on 5 Oct 2009 22:48
Arne Vajhøj wrote: > <T> is new syntax. Just not new keywords. And it definitely added > complexity - just consider how many questions are asked about it here. It is most assuredly not new syntax. The Java version that introduced it hits end-of-service-life in less than four weeks. It was introduced over five years ago. In what IT context is five years considered "new"? -- Lew |