Hi Gilles, 2012/5/28 Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]>: > Hello. > >> >> > >> > Why do you call "valueOf"? >> > >> I have to say I do not like implicit conversions, that's why I tend to >> always use Integer.valueOf and the likes. > > Why? > This is going to get "philosophical": I would not dare to claim that I'm holding *the* truth, this is only my way of seeing things. I do not like things to happen implicitely, because I think that it opens a door to errors (this would not be true of professional programmers, but remember that I work in an environment where people are not real computer scientists... so my philosophy is "close as many doors as you can"...). I even think that J. Bloch has a nice example of potential issues with auto-boxing. However, I agree with you: calling valueOf in this context (that is: building a new exception) is certainly far-fetched.
That was the initial reason why I moved from C++ to Java ten years ago: too many things happened "behind my back". Again, I'm not saying that C++ is evil. I'm just saying that I did not have the background with C++ to be fully aware of these implicit assumptions, and their potential consequences. I'm pretty sure I will not convince you on this. I hope I have at least convinced you that I have a good reason to do it this way :-) >> However, if you think that >> it leads to less readable code, I'm OK with your way of seeing things. > > Good! ;-) > > Gilles > As I said, I will remove these explicit boxings (but be warned: I've used valueOf() in the past, and do apologize for any unwanted occurence...). Best regards, Sébastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
