Am 26.10.2009 14:01, Stephen Colebourne schrieb:
Not wishing to confuse the debate, but perhaps the correct place for
this is a static Strings class, that parallels Objects.
-1
Doing this consequently we could have for each "normal" class
'ClassName' it's static helper class 'ClassNames', so we don't have any
static method in a normal class, and so we could drop this language
concept completely from Java and instead introduce a kind of Class,
where all method's are static by definition, similar to abstract class,
where all methods are abstract.
I assume, the first of the '...s'-classes was 'Arrays', introduced,
because array object's and there members (e.g. length) are not defined
via normal class syntax.
IMO, introducing '...s'-classes for whatever class is a bad idea, and
would satirize the existence of static methods at all, whose task it is
worthy, to provide helper functions to instances of objects, where they
are defined.
Reflecting about this, I would also prefer, to move those static Objects
class methods to existing java.lang.Object.
Having this, we wouldn't need to statically import those methods in any
class.
-Ulf
