Casper Bang wrote: >> I strongly disagree :-) and agree with people expressing their >> appreciation for checked expression, only criticizing the way they were >> implemented. >> > > Isn't that a rather pointless separation though, we have to work with > checked exceptions at a practical level. At a conceptual level I am > already using closures in Java. ;) > In fact, I think I don't need closures. :-P > > Yes, you are given more guaranties (or the illusion thereof) up front, > but at a price. In a way, it comes back to the eternal dilemma between > static and dynamic. > > Right. I might give up with them if a static analysis tool gave me the same checks - e.g. with @Nonnull and findbugs.
-- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/blog [email protected] - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
