yes I am not sure if it is great, but it may just be acceptable - given people can turn it on/off depending if they like it.
On Feb 8, 10:29 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Not convinced myself that this is an acceptable alternative, but: > > What if we just bite the bullet and say that use of an IDE (or at > least a /very/ smart syntax highlighter) is so commonplace that they > may be assumed? Then the editor could render properties in italics, or > something. Problem solved? > > It's better than m_*, you have to give me that :P > > On Feb 7, 3:48 pm, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jess Holle wrote: > > > joncfoo wrote: > > >> What's wrong with syntactic sugar and how is it holding it back? The > > >> properties that C# sports are simple, concise, and easy on the eyes. > > >> Why isn't the Java language picking up at least these basic features? > > > > What clearly shows in the Tutorial below is that C# inherits > > > Microsoft's horrible m_* naming convention from C++. > > > > What is also 100% clear is that such naming conventioned are > > > absolutely necessary for clarity due to the way C# does its > > > properties! The fact that C# uses "object.PropertyName" for access > > > necessitates that either (1) you use a goofy m_* convention for fields > > > or (2) you use the capitalized form for the property (Name) and the > > > uncapitalized form for the field (name). (2) by itself is actually > > > way too subtle in practice -- thus necessitating the goofy m_* convention. > > > To be clear, though I don't like the m_* convention, etc, there's a > > bigger issue here for Java: > > > The convention all Java programmers have been trained with (and that > > is in all books and training materials and IDEs) is simple > > lower-case (leading lowercase and camel case thereafter) names for > > /both /fields and properties (yes, Java *does* have properties; > > JavaBeans may need improvement, but they're there). > > > Thus mixing Java's longstanding naming conventions with use of the "." > > operator for property access is a recipe for confusion. > > > > Instead if Java does properties I hope it can just use "->" instead of > > > "." -- making it 100% clear that this is a property rather than field > > > access and leaving no such ambiguities. > > > > As for C#'s syntax for declaring properties -- I don't see any big > > > step forward here except in the case of auto-implemented properties. > > > Sure there's slightly less typing and you don't repeat yourself on > > > getName() and setName(), but there's no big win in other cases. > > > > Of course the auto-implemented property example raises other issues in > > > that once you need to move away from an auto-implemented property to > > > one backed by a field you have to introduce the field and examine all > > > usages of the property within your class that really should have been > > > using the field. At this point once again you're back to m_* > > > conventions if you want any sort of clarity in the code. > > > > Overall, I certainly wouldn't say Java should just copy C#'s > > > properties! This is not rubber-stampable. > > > > -- > > > Jess Holle > > >> On Feb 6, 1:16 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> "It is just syntactic sugar" gets you perl. > > > >>> That's what's holding it back. > > > >>> On Feb 6, 7:24 pm, joncfoo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> Regarding properties: > > >>>> What is holding them back from implementing properties like they are > > >>>> in C# since it could be implemented as syntactic sugar. > > > >>>> Plenty of examples > > >>>> here:http://www.csharp-station.com/Tutorials/Lesson10.aspx > > > >>>> It would be nice to traverse large object graphs w/o having the ugly > > >>>> getters. > > > >>>> E.g. > > > >>>> // before > > >>>> obj1.getObject2().getObject3().getObject4().setSomeProperty(1234); > > > >>>> // after > > >>>> obj1.object2.object3.object4.someProperty = 1234; > > > >>>> It is just syntactic sugar... > > > >>>> Jonathan > > > >>>> On Feb 5, 9:47 pm, Bill Robertson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> On Feb 4, 11:58 am, gafter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Although I believe the syntax is not ideal in its current form, I'm > > >>>>>> not going to spend more time on it until Sun formally decides they > > >>>>>> want to move forward with it, and that's not going to happen in JDK7. > > > >>>>> I certainly understand that position, but I think its worth > > >>>>> considering syntax, even if only in a passive manner (i.e. just think > > >>>>> about it). I've been dealing with C++ recently, and man oh man* I > > >>>>> forgot what a pain that was after not having touched it in so long. > > >>>>> Generics nudged Java syntax in this direction, and the little bits and > > >>>>> bobs of closure syntax that I've seen so far (no specific proposal > > >>>>> mind you), have left me with that same feeling. I hate to try to > > >>>>> suggest answers when I don't believe I have good ones, but I also hate > > >>>>> to just complain w/o offering suggestions. So I would like to offer > > >>>>> up the suggestion of considering keywords rather than oddball > > >>>>> symbols. e.g. lambda v.s. => > > > >>>>> Thanks. > > > >>>>> *Not to be confused with, "OhmanOh Man," a lesser known super hero. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
