Re:Help me sort out the meaning of “{}” as a constructor arg...
by nommm-nommm on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @03:27PM
(#13017358)
Agreed but in my opinion the cruft in Java is not nearly as bad as the cruft in C++. That's a personal opinion though, I'm mostly a Java programmer in my day job so that may cloud my perception of the language because I'm so used to it. I've never fought with Java like I have with C++.
Re:Help me sort out the meaning of “{}” as a constructor arg...
by twic on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:34PM
(#13018631)
It's URL::equals that hits the network, not URI::equals; the latter is a lot more sane. And even URL::equals often won't hit the network, because Java caches DNS lookups forever.
I realise that i am not exactly disproving your point about cruft here.
Re:Help me sort out the meaning of “{}” as a constructor arg...
by munificent on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:04PM
(#13018801)
Ha, I couldn't remember if it was URI or URL and I was too lazy to look. :-/
Half the age of C++ (and it's ancestor C which is it largely compatible with).
> It has absolutely stood the test of time.
Sure, it's held up really well. It takes advantage of the fact that baking in GC, memory safety, and platform independence sweeps a lot of C++'s nastiness under the rug. Of course, those choices are also what generally makes Java unsuitable for many of the things you can do in C++.
Even so, Java has certainly acquired it's share of cruft. Primitives, type erasure, checked exceptions, Uri.equals() hitting the network (!), nested classes, covariant arrays, arrays and lists being different and arrays getting all the nice syntax, etc.