light weight types
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: Putting passwords in a properties file?
Next: Interview
From: Arne Vajhøj on 6 Oct 2009 21:59 Lew wrote: > 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"? It was new syntax when it was added. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 6 Oct 2009 22:02 Jeff Higgins wrote: > John B. Matthews wrote: >> In article <ha7fvl$8g0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Jeff Higgins <oohiggins(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> John B. Matthews wrote: >>>> In article <7ig1fsF319h9fU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Mike Amling <mamling(a)rmcis.com> wrote: >>>>> Surely someone somewhere must have something like this already, >>>>> with classes or interfaces for time, distance, mass, etc. >>>> JSR-275: <http://jscience.org/api/index.html> >>>> >>> <https://jscience.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=654> >> >> Thank you for responding. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the >> process to understand the import of the discussion you cited. The >> measure package was moved to javax.measure in anticipation of >> standardization as part of JSR-275. Failing that, the code still seems >> useful. Is there some reason to be wary? >> > > The JSR process is opaque. > I would rather have seen another development process chosen, > and the measure.* packages remain in the jscience namespace. > I am not certain what benefit the API of the measure.* > packages accrue from becoming a 'standard technical specification'. > The code is useful, available, and liberally licensed. > The JSR process is opaque. In many contexts including deployment and legal it has advantages if some functionality is part of Java instead of an external package. Whether this particular package has sufficient wide usage to warrant being included I do not know. Arne
From: Lew on 6 Oct 2009 22:23 Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Lew wrote: >> 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"? > > It was new syntax when it was added. So was the "assert" keyword. So were anonymous classes. Heck, the Java language itself was new when it first came out. Come on. -- Lew
From: Roedy Green on 6 Oct 2009 22:25 On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:33:33 -0700, Roedy Green <see_website(a)mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >You did one of the things I like to see in docs, start with the simple >case and gradually add the complexities. The other thing you did that I like was introduce the need for a feature before diving into the specifics of how it work, -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com I advocate that super programmers who can juggle vastly more complex balls than average guys can, should be banned, by management, from dragging the average crowd into system complexity zones where the whole team will start to drown. ~ Jan V.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 6 Oct 2009 22:40
Lew wrote: > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> Lew wrote: >>> 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"? >> >> It was new syntax when it was added. > > So was the "assert" keyword. So were anonymous classes. Heck, the Java > language itself was new when it first came out. Come on. Most new features add complexity. That was the point in what I was trying to explain. New features adds complexity whether they add new keywords or not. So "<T>" or "of T" does not make a big difference in the complexity added. Arne |