The more, the merrier! Login and vote now.
By bloid
via martin-probst.com
Published: May 21 2008 / 14:54
Ola Bini has posted an interesting list of features he'd like to have in a hypothetical Java 3.
There are some points I definitely wouldn't like, such as "No primitive arrays." - I know they are a pain to have in the type system, but getting rid of them and thus making it nearly impossible to implement custom data structures is really not the way forward.
Comments
raveman replied ago:
I like 3/5 so not bad. The last one is the worst if you have MyConstructor(String,String,String,int,int,double,String) what you should do is Refactor->Intruduce Parameter Object... Not only it will be easier to read, but you can change/add/remove the parameters and sygnature of method wont change.
Identifiers as first class citizens is the best idea, writing static HQL would be cool. However that would be too cool (just like switch for String), so i dont see it happening. Java can add cool things like static imports(it can be viewed as cool, i think its super useless, but that is the level of coolness that is available).
Plus @NotNull, @NotNull, @NotNull, @NotNull, @NotNull, @NotNull, @NotNull !!!
e_utrilla replied ago:
In general, I find this post more realistic and useful than the original one from Ola Bini.
Regarding the passing of constructor parameter, I just love the Groovy way for that: you can even pass just a HashMap with the named parameters, and the language itself gets the proper values and places them in the right places.
And syntactic sugar may not be that important, but I've found myself in the past using String[] instead of ArrayList> just because the array was so much easier to initialise with fixed values. Again, that is one of my favourite Groovy features, even more than closures, because it is not the most powerful one, but for sure it's one that I'd use every single day.
Voters For This Link (6)
Voters Against This Link (2)