posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
palfrey at 02:42am on 16/12/2004
palfrey at 02:42am on 16/12/2004Gah... have just spent more time than any sane person should wrestling with the freakish thing that is Java Generics. Let's just say that of all of the implementations of generic/template classes, this is the most botched up. I'd rather be writing Haskell, let's just put it that way.....
Interesting thing from a posting in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
cyberpunk - First piercing-type thing I'm vaguely willing to do - given my usual opinion of "If I get anything like that done it'll be augumentation not ornamentation", this is a darn cool thing.
Interesting thing from a posting in
cyberpunk - First piercing-type thing I'm vaguely willing to do - given my usual opinion of "If I get anything like that done it'll be augumentation not ornamentation", this is a darn cool thing.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
1) Operator overloading
2) Find out *which* object is the current generic type, so that I can do type checking on dynamically called functions
3) Subclassable enum's - as they're subclasses of java.lang.Enum this *should* be doable, but no... they're final instead. And java.lang.Enum can't be directly subclassed by the programmer... thrice cursed language designers...
4) Getting rid of all the damn primitive types in favour of an actual OO-language
5) No more calling of vastLongFunction().anotherLengthyFunction().anotherDarnJavaFunction() just to get hold of a relatively common value.
In short, I'd either like to be in C++ (I'm willing to trade the freedom to shoot myself in the foot in exchange for some darn power) or Python (where I could have done all of the above in about 30 seconds flat). Heck, even Haskell would be better. At least that had a function pointer-like concept, which is darn hard to get hold of in Java (and bloody annoying to use when you can).