21–30 of 216 posts
I, for one, am enjoying the ever so slow scalaization of java.
If the JVM magically got rid of nulls and Scala cleaned up some of the slightly wartier bits (implicits come to mind, although they are useful and no clue how I'd fix em...) then Scala would be my favorite language around by quite a bit. Besides maybe Rust. Really different usecases though.
... To write such a class responsibly, one has to write a lot of low-value, repetitive code: constructors, accessors ... If you're writing a plain data class, why on earth would you write getters and setters? Just make your fields public and be done with it. I will be forever perplexed by the idea of getters and setters (and this extends to C#s syntax sugar). I have no idea what problem they solve. If you're at the l…
You're cutting out/ignoring a big chunk of the quote and then arguing a point the author didn't make. Simply accessing properties directly doesn't solve the problem.
Why underscores in "__data"? Is this just a temporary thing?
Otherwise I really like this proposal. I absolutely love the ability to do D structuring, and I like the idea that they’re going to make it possible to make these immutable as well.
... To write such a class responsibly, one has to write a lot of low-value, repetitive code: constructors, accessors ... If you're writing a plain data class, why on earth would you write getters and setters? Just make your fields public and be done with it. I will be forever perplexed by the idea of getters and setters (and this extends to C#s syntax sugar). I have no idea what problem they solve. If you're at the l…
Whether a data class should touch enough code to make the transformation a burden is another matter, though.
Animal dog = Animal.builder()
.setName("dog")
.setNumberOfLegs(4)
.build();
Honestly immutable data classes that are created via builders is a must have in Java.
... To write such a class responsibly, one has to write a lot of low-value, repetitive code: constructors, accessors ... If you're writing a plain data class, why on earth would you write getters and setters? Just make your fields public and be done with it. I will be forever perplexed by the idea of getters and setters (and this extends to C#s syntax sugar). I have no idea what problem they solve. If you're at the l…
... To write such a class responsibly, one has to write a lot of low-value, repetitive code: constructors, accessors ... If you're writing a plain data class, why on earth would you write getters and setters? Just make your fields public and be done with it. I will be forever perplexed by the idea of getters and setters (and this extends to C#s syntax sugar). I have no idea what problem they solve. If you're at the l…
But I still write them because situations arise where you do need to change the nature of that property, sometimes dynamically, and then it's suddenly worth it. You can, for instance, change a getter and none of the class's clients need to know or care about the change.
Though I haven't used Groovy much I like their approach to this: "Although the compiler creates the usual getter/setter logic, if you wish to do anything additional or different in those getters/setters, you’re free to still provide them, and the compiler will use your logic, instead of the default generated one."
... To write such a class responsibly, one has to write a lot of low-value, repetitive code: constructors, accessors ... If you're writing a plain data class, why on earth would you write getters and setters? Just make your fields public and be done with it. I will be forever perplexed by the idea of getters and setters (and this extends to C#s syntax sugar). I have no idea what problem they solve. If you're at the l…
> obfuscating what happens when you actually access them This is the point, AFAICT. In languages with both primitive "read/write field" operations that can't be interceded upon, but also with interfaces/protocols, "obfuscating" (encapsulating) a field access in getter/setter methods is how you allow for alternative implementations of the interface/protocol. Specifying your object's interface in terms of getters/sette…
If you write a property (what other languages might call a "field") then by default it's a stored property, i.e. it's backed by a bit of memory in the object. If you need to take actions on changes, you can implement a willSet or didSet handler to do so. If you need to change how the value is stored and retrieved altogether, you can change it to a computed property, which invokes code to get and set rather than reading and writing to a chunk of memory. All of this is completely transparent to the caller.
It's particularly interesting because it still acts like a mutable value. You can still pass a reference to such a field into an inout parameter using &, or call mutating methods on it. Behind the scenes, the compiler does a read/modify/write dance rather than mutating the value in place.