Java 1.5

Tuberload · May 18, 2004, 05:07 PM

I have read a lot about the new version and see things I like (such as generics), but haven't migrated because of fear of change. $:-\$

I was just curious if any of you have upgraded, and what your thoughts on it are?

Tuberload · May 18, 2004, 05:10 PM

QuoteOne interesting feature of the beta is the ability to choose whether or not to use the new 1.5 features. When compiling your code, you have to explicitly state that you want the Java compiler to use the new 1.5 features. You do this with the following syntax:

javac source 1.5 YourClassName.java

I found this in an article I just read, and it is nice to hear. I will be upgrading now, and will post more about it later.

iago · May 18, 2004, 06:41 PM

Good plan, I'm the same way. I don't want to change

MyndFyre · May 18, 2004, 07:40 PM

Looking through the spec, I see:

Quote
Autoboxing/Unboxing
This facility eliminates the drudgery of manual conversion between primitive types (such as int) and wrapper types (such as Integer). Refer to JSR 201 .

I say, boo! Primitive types -- value types -- should be able to have methods called on them directly without worrying about a reference type wrapper. Boxing wastes memory and ticks.

The enumeration addition copies exactly the way enums function in C#.

I like the moves that Java is making, though. It's almost becoming useful.

Hostile · May 18, 2004, 09:33 PM

I've been familiarizing myself with the new features since the beta pre-releases of it but even with final versions out i never end up making much use of the new API until its integrated in the products I use with it. Like WebLogic.

Tuberload · May 18, 2004, 09:57 PM

Quote from: Myndfyre on May 18, 2004, 07:40 PM
Looking through the spec, I see:

Quote
Autoboxing/Unboxing
This facility eliminates the drudgery of manual conversion between primitive types (such as int) and wrapper types (such as Integer). Refer to JSR 201 .

I say, boo! Primitive types -- value types -- should be able to have methods called on them directly without worrying about a reference type wrapper. Boxing wastes memory and ticks.

The enumeration addition copies exactly the way enums function in C#.

I like the moves that Java is making, though. It's almost becoming useful.

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

JK

Banana fanna fo fanna · May 19, 2004, 02:09 PM

java is way too verbose imo. it's getting better with 1.5, but still not enough.

Dark-Feanor · May 19, 2004, 07:14 PM

I believe that 1.5 is still beta.

MyndFyre · May 19, 2004, 07:16 PM

Quote from: St0rm.iD on May 19, 2004, 02:09 PM
java is way too verbose imo. it's getting better with 1.5, but still not enough.

I now understand why you disdain VB. As I have been working on an extremely simple sample VB .NET bot using my API, I have discovered that it uses a lot to say a little.

What I say in VB .NET:

Code Select


For i As Integer = 0 to someArray.Length Step 2
  ' blah
Next

I can do in C#:

Code Select


for (int i = 0; i < someArray.Length; i+=2) {
}

Even better are function declarations, with attributes:
C#:

Code Select


[STAThread()]
public static int Main(string[] args) {
}

Note the line-continuation marker after the attribute declaration (I don't know why they decided on that, but it's gay).
VB:

Code Select


<System.STAThread()>_
Public Shared Function Main(ByVal args() As String) As Integer

End Function

Eck.

Anyway, off-topic, of course. This all gets around to -- why is it you think Java is verbose? I would tend to disagree -- in fact, I think it's relatively concise.

Tuberload · May 19, 2004, 08:14 PM

Quote from: Myndfyre on May 19, 2004, 07:16 PM
Anyway, off-topic, of course. This all gets around to -- why is it you think Java is verbose? I would tend to disagree -- in fact, I think it's relatively concise.

I agree with you about it being concise, but when compared to languages like Python, and Scheme which storm talks about it does require a lot more typing.

Banana fanna fo fanna · May 19, 2004, 08:17 PM

After much exploration into other languages, I've decided operator overloading is a must. Makes things so much easier and concise.

Plus, Java is a dynamic language in a static world. It needs eval()!

Tuberload · May 19, 2004, 08:23 PM

Quote from: St0rm.iD on May 19, 2004, 08:17 PM
After much exploration into other languages, I've decided operator overloading is a must. Makes things so much easier and concise.

Plus, Java is a dynamic language in a static world. It needs eval()!

I would like to see operator overloading, but I don't mind the dynamic nature of Java. Besides, I could just write my own eval() method.

MyndFyre · May 19, 2004, 08:48 PM

Quote from: St0rm.iD on May 19, 2004, 08:17 PM
After much exploration into other languages, I've decided operator overloading is a must. Makes things so much easier and concise.

Plus, Java is a dynamic language in a static world. It needs eval()!

I agree, I like operator overloading in C#.

I remember when I first started programming in C# (I stepped up from Javascript). I referenced the JScript .NET assemblies in my project, just so I could use the eval() function. Now I say, "run away! run away!"

Hostile · May 19, 2004, 11:20 PM

Quote from: DaRk-FeAnOr on May 19, 2004, 07:14 PM
I believe that 1.5 is still beta.

yeah... you can download here: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
and... api specs here: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/index.html

iago · May 20, 2004, 07:16 AM

I disagree - I *hate* operator overloading. It makes things happen that shouldn't happen which just confuses things.

std::string a ="123test" + 3;
That should make a point to the character array "test", and it's impossible to figure out what's going on without the documentation because of the two overloads (= and +).