• 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: Lachlan Deck <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:21:02 +1100

On 01/04/2009, at 6:29 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:

This already should have happened. Once you get a firm grasp of the Java Collections API, it's design, intention and power, NSArray and it's company will make you want to puke. I actually thought that WO would move in this direction by first making NSArray implement List, and do all the similar stuff, then depreciate Foundation collections, and the finally get rid of them. Well, maybe that still is the intention, but it sure is slow.
The lack of power sucks,

Can you elaborate on the lack of power?
Things I love (not) about standard collections: can't instantiate the silly things with objects. No nsarray kvc ops...


but the lack of immutable forms of the List/Map/Set interfaces in Java is a failure IMO.

Indeed.

WO/EOF moving to straight List/Map/Set would suffer from a loss in clarity as a result. On the flip side, it would gain the performance and flexibility of the Java collections APIs, which is a win. I'm definitely conflicted on the correct answer to this conundrum.

As long as KVC options remain I guess I don't mind if they go the way of the dodo. But I much prefer the clarity of setObjectForKey than put etc.


with regards,
--

Lachlan Deck

_______________________________________________
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: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
    • 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>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: ERXWORepetition sending null iterator item.
  • Next by Date: Re: IllegalStateException: There is no database snapshot available...
  • Previous by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread