[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

There has been a lot of criticism of the presentation from James Gosling but I found it if fairly good (give or take ASF rather than ASP). As regards primitive wrappers the implementation gets more complicated if you try and have a hierarchy. The existing implementation uses classes. If these clas

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Types are known at compile time. That's part of the meaning of 'type'. See TAPL. On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Miroslav Pokorny wrote: > @Ricky > What happens for types that arent known at compile time, and the compiler > has not synthesized a method for them ? > > > -- > You received this

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On Dec 7, 12:49 am, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > Weird, huh? Yeah. Have a look at this snippet (or better yet, try it > out!): mmm. I understand your point but I'd still be very wary about converting primitives between integer and decimal types? It sort of appears to work...almost. For example

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

.com Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 10:10:13 PM Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java Yes but Number itself has lossy getters. Long.byteValue() breaks LSP which itself models the situation as expressed previously about raw primitives.

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Yes but Number itself has lossy getters. Long.byteValue() breaks LSP which itself models the situation as expressed previously about raw primitives. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

_ From: Reinier Zwitserloot To: The Java Posse Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 7:39:19 PM Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java I indeed mixed up the order. Obviously doubles are at the top of the hierarchy; a double is not a suitable

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

@Ricky What happens for types that arent known at compile time, and the compiler has not synthesized a method for them ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubs

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Imagine a language that supports subtyping, but has no pointers. To allow foo(Animal) to be called with a Dog as an argument, the compiler generates a version of foo that takes Dog as an argument but otherwise is identical to foo(Animal). It does this by need, not for every conceivable method cal

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Weird, huh? Yeah. Have a look at this snippet (or better yet, try it out!): public void foo(float x) { System.out.println("FLOAT"); } public void foo(double y) { System.out.println("DOUBLE"); } foo(10L); that'll actually print 'FLOAT', believe it or not. As I said, the method resolution par

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

ferently. Garbage > collection > > >>>> is different. Type conversion is different. You could stipulate that > Java > >>>> should have had primitive support on the bytecode level without > exposing them > >>>>in > > >>>&g

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Ruby is a hard nut to crack. It's _very_ similar to python, which would surely have become much bigger without java around. Possibly so big, ruby wouldn't have gotten as far as it did (i.e. no Rails). On Dec 6, 6:31 pm, Marcelo Fukushima wrote: > i wonder if that would make ruby and the like more

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

JVM, and we now have "purer" object models in some > other > JVM languages and if we want to work in Java, we just need to be aware of the > quirks of the type system.  We've always known that. > >  Alexey > > ____________ > From: Reinier Zw

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

A reference to a float can hardly hold a double if you can't have a reference to a float in the first place! (this is why you can't have a List) On 6 Dec 2010 23:39, "Ricky Clarkson" wrote: > How does a reference affect it? > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: > >> Liskov means

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

How does a reference affect it? On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: > Liskov means that you can write code which depends on the exact rounding > behaviour of a float, and it would fail if working with a double. The types > are not transparently substitutable. > > This isn't a su

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Liskov means that you can write code which depends on the exact rounding behaviour of a float, and it would fail if working with a double. The types are not transparently substitutable. This isn't a subclasses relationship, nor can it be - given that primitives aren't held by reference. The spec

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Liskov principal means a long can stand in for a int and teh caller will work unmodified w/ both. Given some conversion is required between the two and the bit patterns are different (eg byte -> double), there is no substitution there is only conversion. One needs different bytecode to do whatever

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

32bit float > 64bit long? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options,

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

> So yes, LSP really *does* apply here. Does it though? Given that one can't substitute one value of primitive type for one of another type without it being subject to conversion (explicit or not) such a substitution can't entail changes to program properties in a way relevant to LSP. Then again

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

ved from the object paradigm than they actually are. > > Alexey > > > > > > > From: Kevin Wright > To: javaposse@googlegroups.com > Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 4:44:11 PM > Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle > and t

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

ubject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java Java Language Spec, 3rd Edition, page 63: 4.10.1 Subtyping among Primitive Types The following rules define the direct supertype relation among the primitive types: double > float float >

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

gt; what > > we have in Java and the JVM, and we now have "purer" object models in > some other > > JVM languages and if we want to work in Java, we just need to be aware of > the > > quirks of the type system. We've always known that. > > > > Alexey >

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

nt to work in Java, we just need to be aware of > > the > > quirks of the type system. We've always known that. > > > > Alexey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Reinier Zwitserloot > >

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

n Java and the JVM, and we now have "purer" object models in some other > JVM languages and if we want to work in Java, we just need to be aware of the > quirks of the type system. We've always known that. > > Alexey > > > > > > ____________________

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

i wonder if that would make ruby and the like more or less popular On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > A separate reply to Cedric's very interesting question of: Which > language would have succeeded if java hadn't. > > At first I'm fairly sure C would have kept most of

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

ect models in some other JVM languages and if we want to work in Java, we just need to be aware of the quirks of the type system. We've always known that. Alexey From: Reinier Zwitserloot To: The Java Posse Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 8:51:14 AM S

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On 5 December 2010 13:54, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > A separate reply to Cedric's very interesting question of: Which > language would have succeeded if java hadn't. > > At first I'm fairly sure C would have kept most of the now java > programmers, but I rather doubt C would have become mainstr

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

A separate reply to Cedric's very interesting question of: Which language would have succeeded if java hadn't. At first I'm fairly sure C would have kept most of the now java programmers, but I rather doubt C would have become mainstream for web development. Its just spectacularly badly suited to

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

If you want to blame somebody / some decision here, blame the notion that primitives have different typing relationships than their boxed equivalents. That's the primary issue stopping any attempt to make primitives less 'special'. According to the JLS: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_ed

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On 12/04/2010 08:01 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Neil Bartlett > wrote: I'm *not* surprised that he didn't mention the Date and Calendar APIs. He should have, but I'm not surprised he didn't. I'm also not surprised that he

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Neil Bartlett wrote: > I'm *not* surprised that he didn't mention the Date and Calendar APIs. > He should have, but I'm not surprised he didn't. I'm also not > surprised that he failed to mention primitives and arrays. > Careful with revisionism here. I think the

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Neil Bartlett wrote: I'm *not* surprised that he didn't mention the Date and Calendar APIs. He should have, but I'm not surprised he didn't. I'm also not surprised that he failed to mention primitives and arrays. His response to this whole question was a terrible cop out.

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On 4 December 2010 15:28, Neil Bartlett wrote: > I'm *not* surprised that he didn't mention the Date and Calendar APIs. > He should have, but I'm not surprised he didn't. I'm also not > surprised that he failed to mention primitives and arrays. > > His response to this whole question was a terrib

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

I'm *not* surprised that he didn't mention the Date and Calendar APIs. He should have, but I'm not surprised he didn't. I'm also not surprised that he failed to mention primitives and arrays. His response to this whole question was a terrible cop out. It's clear that James doesn't really regret an

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Vince O'Sullivan wrote: > I got the overwhelming impression that he's bored and > been bored for a while, which maybe explains the increasing stagnation > of Java over the last couple of years. > Agree about the "bored" part, but I think you vastly overestimate J

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Vince O'Sullivan wrote: > On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, Serge Boulay wrote: > > great video. Did you notice the huge endorsement that JSF got from > Gosling > > :-) > > I must have missed that bit. I must admit that after ten minutes I > started jumping forward too see where

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, Serge Boulay wrote: > great video. Did you notice the huge endorsement that JSF got from Gosling > :-) I must have missed that bit. I must admit that after ten minutes I started jumping forward too see where the interesting stuff was. Unfortunately, all his answers were more o

[The Java Posse] Re: James Gosling on Apple, Apache, Google, Oracle and the Future of Java

Mentioned Scala several times, which means we'll hear about this on the next Podcast for sure. lol -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group