On 29 March 2011 22:34, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:27:01 PM UTC+2, KWright wrote:
>>
>> for(String path: Paths) {
>> final File file = new File(path);
>> final Widget widget = loadWidget(file)
>> widgetBuilder.add(widget)
>> }
>>
>>
>
>> val widgets = paths map { path => loadWidget(new File(path)) }
>>
>>
>>
> One of my pet peeves is language fanboys sneaking in irrelevant
> complications in the language they don't like. Which you've done here. If we
> take scala as a cue for how language should be styled, we could just as
> easily write:
>
> for (String path : paths) widgetBuilder.add(loadWidget(new File(path));
>
> which is barely longer than the scala example and arguably simpler.
>
>
Why are you criticizing the self-proclaimed "rough first draft" and totally
ignoring the whole point of my message? Specifically, that using checked
exceptions to provide an alternate return is a flawed design, because it
sidesteps the type system and doesn't compose effectively - as demonstrated
by an example in which I apply a potentially exception-throwing operation to
multiple elements of a collection.
The entire reason it's written like that is because I originally had
explicit exception wrapping around each line, which I subsequently removed
deeming it to obscure the purpose of the sample. At that point, it was
sufficient to demonstrate the core algorithm, and you'll even note that I
mentioned how necessary exception handling had been left out.
My intent was not to make that aspect of Java syntax look artificially bad,
but to start with a familiar syntax before migrating to a language that
already has the functionality I'm advocating. I could have completed the
whole thing in Java, but it would have required an unwieldy amount of
supporting code, including either SAM types or the as-yet unfinalized Java 8
closure syntax.
Perhaps you could cherry-pick a spelling mistake as well, which would then
*surely* demonstrate how everything I stated was completely invalid
> As to the actual intent of your message - Cedric said all that needs to be
> said.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
Kevin Wright
gtalk / msn : [email protected]
<[email protected]>mail: [email protected]
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright
quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
twitter: @thecoda
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not
regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current
conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of
the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
--
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.
