Stewart Stremler([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:28:34AM -0700 wrote: > begin quoting Christopher Smith as of Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:00:46AM -0700: > > Stewart Stremler wrote: > > >Generics changed that. Java is becoming C++ like.
<SNIP/> > > but frankly Java without generics just had this huge > > gaping eyesore of a problem in its type system, The sheer verbosity of the code is what assaults my eyes. I can appreciate the OO method for a variety of reasons. Verbosity tends to follow along with OO languages, though. It's like being in the car with someone who farts; usually not deadly, but you don't want to ride with them again. :-) > Never bothered me. Bothered some of my collegues, but I figured that > if you're passing around raw collections, you're writing poor OO code > anyway, so why worry about it. That's a reasonable response. Although, I can see how it would frustrate your colleagues. When a tool restricts me because the tool's developer assumes knowledge of how/why I'll use it, it really ticks me off. Isn't really a situation that can be fixed, IMO. It's a question of human nature, more than of tools. > All I wanted was covariant return types. Ah. Now, when I know what generics are, maybe I'll understand explanations of "raw collections" and "covariant return types" :-) Oh, and synchronize. If anyone is willing to instruct, please do! > But now I read that you're not supposed to use those... Wah! They probably figure that if you're using those, you must be writing poor OO code anyway. So, why worry about it? ;-D <SNIP/> > C++ is a very logical language. Ever annoying, obnoxious, or stupid > thing in the language is justified by a rational and logical reason, > considering everything else the language does. > > "Wouldn't it be neat if..." is a poor design aesthetic. Design _aesthetic_?? Who cares? "Wouldn't it be neat if..." is what leads to the best innovation. It's obviously hard to invent successful software design solutions... and the cruddy ones will be packaged and marketed to those who can't tell the difference. Still, it seems to me that a language developed with that focus should have value to those who _can_ tell the difference by providing disproof of concept (or at least of implementation). > I don't want a one-language-fits-all-problems language. It just results > in a language that is equally unpleasant for all problems... I wonder about that. Is it the language itself that is unpleasant? Maybe it has more to do with how each individual approaches decomposing a project. I suspect people gravitate to certain languages because of how it fits their approach to the problem(s) at hand (but obviously not that alone). > I have more than one screwedriver in my toolbox. And more than one toolbox. Me too, but that's more because I want to have a screwdriver _anywhere_ I can find one after the kids have borrowed it. :-) Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
