Augusto wrote:
> Reiner;
>
> That's a great long post that has nothing to do with my reaction! :-)
>
> As Jess points out, I'm not a fan of allowing programmers to mess
> around with how operators work. That doesn't mean that I like some of
> the inconsistencies that the Java language has with operators, but
> letting everybody do the same is not something to look forward to.
>
> Those of use that came from a C++ background know very well how
> overriding operators can become an absolute nightmare, where you start
> looking at code where you don't know what just what the hell is going
> on. If you can find a way to solve that, so that it is clear that an
> operator is overloaded and has a different meaning, then that'd be
> great. Not really sure how you can do that, maybe some fancy syntax
> highlighting from IDE editors?
>
Even so I:
1. Reject the notion that it is acceptable to require syntax
highlighting for a language to be meaningful.
2. Fear the brevity trap.
* Operators are only 1 character. Programmers are lazy.
Undisciplined programmers in cases will take most any random
few operations and add them to their API as operators rather
as descriptive method names. It's just too tempting.
Neither item applies to a 1 man project, but when faced with a large
project with 100's of developers of a wide range of skills I want the
language to tend to eak some level of readability out of even mediocre
developers. This is not for their sakes but rather to protect the rest
of the organization from them.
--
Jess Holle
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
