• 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 14:30:17 +1100

On 01/04/2009, at 7:23 AM, Sacha Michel Mallais wrote:

On Mar 31, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:

Heh - and while we're at it, let's replace NSArray with ArrayList, NSDictionary with HashMap and NSSet with .... well, some of those gazillion java collection classes....

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.
Agreed. Foundation collections are an embarrassing relic.
Unfortunately, the standard Java collection classes (JCC) gloss over an important aspect of collection classes: mutability vs. immutability. EOF requires the latter for all attributes, so switching to JCC in EOF would be dangerous, and, IMHO, foolish.

AFAIK, the only benefit to using standard JCC is to be more "standard" Java... something I'd like but am willing live without in order to gain the benefit of EOF.
performance ... under heavy load, the java collections classes in specific parts of WO/EOF perform much better. one could make the case that NSDict/MutableDict should instead extend HashMap, though. Unfortunately to play nicely with other API's, they still impl Map/List, which means that even now we lose our immutable API's. Personally, I still use the NS API's even though Map/List is available explicitly so I get proper immutability compile time checks.

Fair enough: being able to choose the implementation is a Good Thing. I guess I subscribe to the "make it right, then make it good, then make it fast" philosophy, and in that respect, the standard JCC -- and some of the JDK as a whole -- give me butt rash.

Yeah and the only real changes needed for now are that WORepetition and co allow for standard collections.


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


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: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Sacha Michel Mallais <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Sacha Michel Mallais <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by Date: Re: ERXWORepetition sending null iterator item.
  • Previous by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Next by thread: Re: Getters without the "get" part
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread