One-liners, Inline... On Nov 20, 7:32 pm, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is no such claim. dot instead gains an extra possible meaning > > (pass ref to extension method). > > That's just ambiguous and confusing rather than a lie then.
dot already means a thousand things. Now it means 1001 things. Sky will remain firmly set in the heavens. > > Why? No, seriously, why? It's almost 2010. Perhaps the dumb terminal > > model should no longer be held as sacrosanct. The code isn't utter > > gobbledygook in a dumb terminal - just includes slightly more > > abstraction. I don't see a fire here. > > When dealing with large number of modules, some of them large and > needing to simply review and understand code having to toss entire > modules around or load them up from source control is a real issue. I don't understand. Are you trying to argue that huge source bases are slow to open in an IDE? You're betting against future performance improvements? That would be unwise. > > The polymorphism is well established and understood here. Extension > points add another unfettered dimension here. polymorphism is understood? That's quite a laugh. Extension points are quite a bit simpler than polymorphism. Much more statically linkable. > > Yes, it's not the syntax that's the issue here -- it's what the syntax > *does* that's the issue. It leads to a lot of developer confusion when > onne has what appear to be method calls against "this" throughout the > code that are nothing of the sort, for instance. Possibly he can bang some rocks together and make a rudimentary knife. Tools can trace an extension call with 100% accuracy every time. This entire line of reasoning presupposes that a *programmer* avoids *software* like the plague. The cognitive dissonance is staggering. Casper: I think most of us like extension points in one form or another, and we're just getting excited about painting our bikeshed an yellowish mauve, or possibly goldenrod. Programmers will be programmers. It's in our genes. Fabrizio: Your syntax is even more convoluted than Collections.sort, includes even more code primitives, and ends up containing a lot of boilerplate. The notion that "Sorter.class" is going to help me understand "list.sort();" more is a bit strange, isn't it? JDK7 is trying to get rid of repeating ourselves (diamond operator, joy!) and now you're putting it right back again. The notion that sort() is being provided by Sorter is in your extension imports, which are... somewhere folded away out of sight, there mostly for your IDE, and, where needed, for your own inspection. It shouldn't be there when you're just trying to grok your code. -- 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=.
