• 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: Phillip Hutchings <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:56:08 +1300

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 17:59, Mike Schrag <email@hidden> 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?
>
> Lack of power = I wanted LinkdHashMap, ConcurrentHashMap, LinkedList vs
> ArrayList, TreeMap, WeakHashMap ... So many other options.  The NS
> collections are fundamentally flawed that they are concrete.

This is mostly a difference in philosophy. I don't know how Apple
implemented the NS* collections in Java though, so my reasoning could
be completely wrong. I'm in an interesting position of working on a
Java library implementation, WebObjects and with Objective-C/Cocoa at
the same time.

The only fuel I'm going to add to the fire (and this is a very
volatile fuel - it starts religious wars!) is this:

Cocoa/WebObject's collection classes describe _intent_, not method. In
fact, in Cocoa the underlying implementation actually changes as you
use it.

Java's collection classes describe the method. They assume that you
have a reasonable idea of what you're doing.

Personally, I like the Cocoa approach better, it lets me get on with
my job without thinking about implementation details. But that's just
me :)

If you want to know more, try http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/?p=27

--
Phillip Hutchings
http://www.sitharus.com/
 _______________________________________________
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: 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: Lachlan Deck <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Getters without the "get" part (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)

  • Prev 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