• 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: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:39:20 -0400

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.

The Orthodox Church of Java has ruined a couple of generations of potentially good developers so far.

*sigh* I know -and now I'm in the weird position of arguing FOR generic java - something I've (almost) never done before. But we are in the progress of open sourcing our software and therefore, we need to use standard java wherever possible :-/


That sucks serious horse****, as we say in Icelandic.
I don't know what the actual icelandic saying is, but I have mentally filled in quite a few words, all of which are appropriate and funny to varying degrees :)

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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Getters without the "get" part
      • From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
    • Re: Getters without the "get" part
      • From: David Holt <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>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by Date: Re: Converting a project from WebObjects 5.3 to 5.4
  • Previous by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread