Take a look at: http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/collections/designfaq.html
Either you agree with the answer to "Core Interfaces" questions 1 and 2 or you don't. There are tradeoffs to be made, and I think they made some reasonable choices, though others are free to think otherwise :) roland --- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > > > It really ought to be one of those "sure you can do this, but please > don't" > > > things. > > > > It's a RuntimeException. You can't require that all RuntimeExceptions be > > declared if thrown; > <snip> > > You can subclass RuntimeException. So if Sun hadn't provided an > > UnsupportedOperationException, anyone else could easily have done so. > > I'm not objecting to the fact that it's a runtime exception [1] or that it's > possible to do such a thing. I'm objecting to the fact that it's an > exception at all since it adds uncertainty into what should otherwise be a > guaranteed interface and that this uncertainty is put in the core library of > the language. > > Because Sun did it it's now Officially OK, even if that's not what they > ment. More so in the Java world than in Perl, things you do in the core API > become canonized. "Because that's how Sun does it" carries a lot of weight. > In Perl it's often "that's how (C|Bourne Shell|$popular_module) does it". > > Programmers parroting the design of a popular API is common and can be used > for Good or Evil. > > > [1] It would be less worse [2] as a compile-time exception. > [2] This is different than "better". ;) > > -- > > Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ > Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One > I don't get it. Must be art.
