[935] in java-interest
Re: overloading of operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James C Deikun)
Tue Aug 15 18:48:03 1995
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>
To: Tako Schotanus <Tako.Schotanus@bouw.tno.nl>
cc: Matthew Newman <Matthew-Newman@deshaw.com>, MikeDacon@aol.com,
java-interest@java.sun.com
In-Reply-To: <9508150809.AA12063@hermes.bouw.tno.nl>
On Tue, 15 Aug 1995, Tako Schotanus wrote:
[someone else wrote]
> > > No to operator overloading. Simplicity is more important than "just one more
> > > feature."
>
> I don't understand you guys at all! It's not as if *your* programs would be
> any worse off for just having a feature built into the language!
> And as for other people's programs, you're basically telling them "you can't
> use that feature because I don't like it".
They wouldn't be any worse off--IF people programmed in a vacuum. They
don't, and it's even less so in Java. If someone used operator
overloading in some part of the Hotjava public classes, well then
everyone would have to use it.
> I don't mind if we don't get operator-overloading, but if the Sun-people
> really listen too us on this list we'd better make sure we make our reasons
> for having or not having something are good ones.
>
> So for me: *I* like operator-overloading, I think that if you use it in a
> controlled way it can make your code more elegant, but that's a personal
> opinion for sure. But I might not be alone, I might be working for a
> company where it's "policy" to write code like that, and because everybody
> does it you don't have to worry that much about misinterpreting each others
> code.
Java code will be much too public for that. And operator overloading
isn't at all elegant in a single-dispatch environment anyway.
> As for the fact that somebody else might find it difficult to understand my code,
> well to be honest (as long as I don't publish the code ;) I don't give a
> .......... (fill in your favourite rodent's backside).
It'd make your public interfaces more difficult to code for, if you had any.
> I apologise if this is a bit rude, but I really think that it's nobodies
> business but mine to decide what features I'm going to use or not.
Which is why it's better not to have those sorts of features in the first
place. :)
> So shortly put: If there are NO compelling reasons NOT to have the feature
> we might as well considering putting it in for the people who want it.
>
> (Compelling reasons could be: performance problems even for programs NOT
> using the feature or even just that the Sun-people think it's too much work :)
--
James "teaspork" Deikun
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
