You're right, Alexey.  I take it all back.  Better example needed.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]>wrote:

> Except that's not how it would be done in Java.
>
> try {
>  return getMeAnX() + getMeAY();
>
> }
> catch(NoXException e) {
>   throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
> catch(NoYException e) {
>   throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
>
> Alexey
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Cc:* Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>; Russel Winder <
> [email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thu, March 24, 2011 11:54:55 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [The Java Posse] How to deal with CheckedExceptions
>
> Obviously, suggesting that Maybe/Option is a better solution is equally
>> silly.
>>
>
> It is a better solution, because it doesn't have to affect readability the
> same way.  Consider the difference between:
>
> Go (probably incorrect, I don't speak that language):
>
> x, err = getMeAnX()
> if (isError(err))
>     return -1, err
> y, err = getMeAY()
> if (isError(err))
>     return -2, err
> return x + y
>
>  Idiomatic Java:
>
> class XY implements FixedInterface {
>     public int execute() {
>         int x;
>         try {
>             x = getMeAnX();
>         } catch (NoXException e) {
>             throw new RuntimeException(e);
>         }
>         int y;
>         try {
>             y = getMeAY();
>         } catch (NoYException e) {
>             throw new RuntimeException(e);
>         }
>         return x + y;
>     }
> }
>
> Java with Option:
>
> class XPlusY implements FixedInterface {
>     public Option<Integer> execute() {
>         for (int x: getMeAnX())
>             for (int y: getMeAY())
>                 return Option.some(x + y);
>         return Option.none();
>     }
> }
>
> Scala, just for fun:
>
> def execute = for (x <- getMeAnX; y <- getMeAY) yield x + y
>
> or
>
> def execute = getMeAnX.bind(x => getMeAY.map(y => x + y))
>
> The line above can be translated to Java fairly mechanically but I'm not
> sure that would add anything to the debate apart from lots of lines.
>
>
>> --
>> Cédric
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to