11–20 of 116 posts
"Lumping together function pointers that operate on the same data structure is essentially object-oriented programming" is unbelievably contentious regardless of which of the various definitions of OOP you follow.
There are some reasonable things here, but: "Lumping together function pointers that operate on the same data structure is essentially object-oriented programming" is unbelievably contentious regardless of which of the various definitions of OOP you follow.
Some of the more exotic features of what people call "OOP", like polymorphism, take a bit more care and feeding to pull off in straight C. They are most certainly possible, that being said.
Unwind "OOP" to "working with objects that contain data and methods together," and structs with function pointers fit the bill. I've had people stand in my face and practically shout that C++ is object-oriented and C isn't, and one refused to believe or admit that C++ basically compiles down to C in the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Java doesn't have typedefs how would you reduce the verbosity of : ConcurrentHashMap foo = new ConcurrentHashMap ();
There you're largely screwed, but Java is well-known for being extremely verbose, and of course there will be languages that don't have basic features others have had for decades. The closest you can get in Java is to wrap it in a private, internal class. Which also lets you rename some verbose or frequently-combined operations, say: foo.someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterName() -> wrapped.succinct() -- or -- foo.store(…
NSString *thing = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"Result: %@", [foo someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterNameWithZipcode:08205 name:@"larry" parcels:5]];
NSDictionary *request = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:@"iphoneapp/0.1", @"User-Agent", @"news.ycombinator.com", @"Host", nil];
I'm deeply conflicted about this article because I agree with many of its premises. For instance: that C is superior to full-blown C++, that object-oriented programming is no panacea, that simplicity is good. I have serious concerns, however, especially with the first page and the first few chapters. - They support the biases of the myopic programmer who believes that now he or she knows C, they know everything one m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There you're largely screwed, but Java is well-known for being extremely verbose, and of course there will be languages that don't have basic features others have had for decades. The closest you can get in Java is to wrap it in a private, internal class. Which also lets you rename some verbose or frequently-combined operations, say: foo.someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterName() -> wrapped.succinct() -- or -- foo.store(…
I see your Java, and raise you Objective-C: NSString *thing = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"Result: %@", [foo someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterNameWithZipcode:08205 name:@"larry" parcels:5]]; NSDictionary *request = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:@"iphoneapp/0.1", @"User-Agent", @"news.ycombinator.com", @"Host", nil]; This isn't to kick off pet language wars, by the way, just to point out that my OCD tic to…
#define withZip someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterNameWithZipcode
#define dictWith dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys
or
#define dictWith NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys
so you can [dictWith: key, value, key, value]
I actually have a "hashWith" utility function for my .NET code. Saves me a ton of ugh-induced headaches.
> In my Eiffel days, I was encouraged to write "integer", not "int", "character", not "char", and so on. I believe Java encourages this practice too. Supposedly clarity is maximized. But how can this be if we do the opposite when we speak? Do you say “taxi cab”, or “taximeter cabriolet”? Redundant utterances are tiresome and worse still, obscure the idea being expressed. I see this argument a lot, and they strike me…
Given that Java doesn't have typedefs how would you reduce the verbosity of : ConcurrentHashMap foo = new ConcurrentHashMap ();
HashMap foo = Maps.newHashMap();
public static HashMap newHashMap() {
return new HashMap();
}
(I'm not a fan of Java myself, but there are some tricky ways to cut down on its verbosity)
> In my Eiffel days, I was encouraged to write "integer", not "int", "character", not "char", and so on. I believe Java encourages this practice too. Supposedly clarity is maximized. But how can this be if we do the opposite when we speak? Do you say “taxi cab”, or “taximeter cabriolet”? Redundant utterances are tiresome and worse still, obscure the idea being expressed. I see this argument a lot, and they strike me…
Given that Java doesn't have typedefs how would you reduce the verbosity of : ConcurrentHashMap foo = new ConcurrentHashMap ();
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Java doesn't have typedefs how would you reduce the verbosity of : ConcurrentHashMap foo = new ConcurrentHashMap ();
There you're largely screwed, but Java is well-known for being extremely verbose, and of course there will be languages that don't have basic features others have had for decades. The closest you can get in Java is to wrap it in a private, internal class. Which also lets you rename some verbose or frequently-combined operations, say: foo.someoneCouldntComeUpWithAShorterName() -> wrapped.succinct() -- or -- foo.store(…
The great thing about ConcurrentHashMap isn't writing it, it's reading it. Even if you're not a Java programmer you know exactly what that is (and FWIW it's world-class on implementation). We could do with some syntactical sugar to make that constructor line a little simpler, but declaring the type and calling a specific constructor, not masking either with personal shorthand are both Good Things if someone's going to have to read that code later.