• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Getters without the "get" part
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Getters without the "get" part


  • Subject: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • From: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:18:29 +0000

Yes, I am *very* much aware that the NS* collection classes are much better designs than the java ones. NSArray, NSDictionary and NSSet, and mutable counterparts - the simplicity is delightful (at least then compared to java's terrifying heap of trash - TreeMaps, HasMaps, ArrayLists, Vectors, Arrays, AbstractSets, etc, etc...)

But I've found that common generic java programmers that I've hired are uncomfortable with the foundation collection classes - and perhaps understandably so - they've been brought up and trained to use java collections.

IMHO, collections are such an integral part of a language, that Apple should be using the standard architecture. The only reason I can see for keeping the current collection classes is KVC - and that should be solvable by creating custom behaviors for collection objects in NSKeyValueCodingUtility.valueForKeyPath.

I don't like the current situation, where we have immutable collections implementing "optional" methods like "add" and "remove" and throwing an exception during runtime. That's beyond stupid, and causes us some grief. If dropping the foundation classes is impossible, then perhaps Apple could opensource the foundation libraries, so we can create open source class libraries for non WO applications that utilize the standard foundation collections. In fact, I'd like that :-).

- hugi

// Hugi Thordarson
// http://hugi.karlmenn.is/



On 31.3.2009, at 19:59, Mike Schrag wrote:

answer to this conundrum.
Also, you lose a lot of really nice methods on the immutable ones like arrayByAddingObject ...
Not to mention KVC...
yikes ... = killer.

ms

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Getters without the "get" part
      • From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: TW <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Simon McLean <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Dan Grec <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Anjo Krank <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Stamenkovic Florijan <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Anjo Krank <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by Date: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Previous by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread