Just to add my voice to the chorus, I think adding pair is seductive but
ill-considered. Based on our experience at Google, I believe it makes a bad
situation worse. I do believe that Kevin's idea is worth of exploration: in
essence trying to encapsulate all of the knowledge in Chapter 3 of Effective
Java into the language, so that creating a fully-functional value type is as
simple as naming its fields and providing their types. Of course the devil
is in the details, but this could be a very good thing.
Josh
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Mark Reinhold <m...@sun.com> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:14:59 -0700
> > From: Kevin Bourrillion <kev...@google.com>
>
> > ...
> >
> > The problem is that classes like Pair simply go that much further to
> indulge
> > the desire to never have to create any actual types of our own. When
> we're
> > forced to create our own types, we begin to model our data more
> appropriately,
> > which I believe leads us to create good abstractions at broader levels of
> > granularity as well.
>
> I agree. Java isn't Lisp.
>
> - Mark
>
