Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#2Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces
Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)"
Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which one will you use? Fluent interfaces may just be setters in disguise, but they add quite a bit of value.
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#3Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)" Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which…
> Functions are just goto in desguise.
Gosub, if one were to nitpick:)
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#4Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)" Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which…
Right, I think the point of the original article is that you can gain a lot by using the proper syntactic sugar.
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#5Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)" Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which…
Yes, when I read his critique of fluent interfaces I realized that he is just disagreeing with everything to be contrary. "fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it?" - he is not actually critiquing the fluent interfaces, just nitpicking the inconsistency. Its usually a mistake to be overly concerned with consistency.
Yes you can come up with a case where every one of those guidelines are wrong, but I think that there are a lot of cases where they make sense.
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#6He got the same impression that I got, Java is not functional programming language.
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#7Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)" Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which…
As was pointed above, I'm not opposed to fluent interfaces and we use quite a few at my work (Google).
I was just observing that you can't argue against mutators and then encourage people to use fluent interfaces since they are basically the same thing.
Re: Cedric Buest responds to Next-gen Java Programming Style
#8Quoting the article: "Fluent interfaces Now that's an interesting recommendation since it contradicts directly Stephan's suggestion of not using setters, because make no mistakes: fluent interfaces are setters in disguise. So, Stephan, which one is it? :-)" Functions are just goto in desguise. switch/case is just an if/elif/else in diguise. Objects are just structs with some fancy function calling semantics. So which…
> Functions are just goto in desguise. Gosub, if one were to nitpick:)
Depends on the machine.