🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Wade wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:18:49 GMT, spam@bobs.org (Bob Arnson) wrote:
> 
> <rant>
> I am annoyed by the lack of header files.  Is there some  alternative
> that I am not aware of?
> 

Yuck!  Who needs header files?  The compiler can determine everything it needs
to know from the compiled .class files.  Headers are a quaint throwback to
static compilation/linking.


> And why in the world is operator overloading not supported.  One book
> I read indicated the reason was that some programs that use them are
> hard to read.  Geez!  That's like telling the mechanic he can't use a
> large wrench because he might dent the fender.  Let me decide on the
> best tool for the job.

Operator overloading is a great feature for the developers of math libraries. 
It's not appropriate for anything else.  (heresy - I'll be flamed for that one!)

In Java what you see is what you get.  You don't have to wonder how many type
conversions and invisible method calls take place in a statement like x = a + b.

> 
> And then there's the wonderful (lack of) garbage collection.  There
> should be some way to ensure a finalizer is called and when.
> 

VMs are improving even as we rant.


> Oh, and why not use the base class constructor name instead of
> "super"?  And using an initializer list is so much more elegant than
> "it must be the first line of code in the constructor."
> 

What?  super is much cleaner and decouples the code from the specifics of its
inheritance.  With super you don't have to modify your constructors just because
you factored the inheritance tree.


> </rant>
> 
> OK, that ought to stir up the fire.
> 

sizzle sizzle

++Brian

-- 
Brian Burton                        Custom Software Development
Burton Computer Corporation         Java, C++, Orbix, Tuxedo
http://www.burton-computer.com      OO Consulting and Mentoring