On 8 September 2010 14:05, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > IntelliJ can, Eclipse has it on the roadmap. Netbeans... I just don't
> know
>
> Excellent. I keep meaning to set the IDEA plugin up again.
Comes highly recommended!
9.0.2 for the latest feature set.
> >> It would matter if you made YourType.*(Int) fire the missiles instead
> >> of multiply. Think that's unreasonable? Consider List("hello",
> >> "world") map (_ + 2)
> >
> > That would return `List("hello2", "world2")`, it's valid code
>
> But it's code that you need to know the type of _ to understand.
The type is "some class with a + method". That really is all that matters.
The compiler *will* guarantee that _ + 2 is valid for the member type of
that list,
either because there's a + method that accepts an integer, or because `2`
can be implicitly converted to some type that the + method accepts.
> What do you mean by the `YourType.*(Int)` notation? It's not valid syntax
> > in either Java or Scala.
>
> A method named * on the type YourType that takes an Int as a parameter.
So I could define a `*` method on my type that fires missiles, it's true!
I could also define a `multiply` method that does the same thing, why is
this any less evil that the well-known symbol for multiplication?
> > If it's possible to show the "closure" in a folded form, and still know
> > everything about it that you need to, then why not just have the folded
> form
> > as default language syntax?
>
> You won't find me arguing against adding closures to Java!
Wait until you see the syntax for checked exceptions :)
> > I'm also trying to get up to speed with emacs (a third set of bindings!)
> now
> > I've appreciated that Scala doesn't need an IDE so much.
>
> My experience is that well-written projects, in Scala or Java, don't
> really require an IDE. The majority of code I've seen does not fit
> into that category. It's less of a problem for Scala because grunts*
> don't really use it.
>
> * I don't mean to be derogatory here, but I don't have a good word for
> a programmer who doesn't program or learn anything about programming
> outside working hours.
9-5ers is more generous :)
I think that java does need an IDE, if only to avoid a lot of the
repetition.
accessors/constructor injecton/equals/hashcode spring to mind here...
> --
> 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]<javaposse%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
--
Kevin Wright
mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected]
pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright
twitter: @thecoda
--
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.
