undefined | Better HN

0 pointsim3w1l12y ago0 comments

Would be nice sometimes to be able to declare that interfaces are "extended by" or "implemented by".

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

pron12y ago· 3 in thread

Yeah, well, frankly I don't think either approach makes much of a difference. They both work. If anything, the reasons I prefer Java (the language; there are other reasons to like, or dislike, the JVM), are exceptions, final field, and concurrent data structures. The last two are much more substantial than interfaces or exceptions, which make for a pretty cosmetic difference (I find both languages to be quite similar).

azth12y ago

Java's `final` while useful for primitives, it is not really that useful for reference types, which constitute the majority of types. C++'s `const` is a much better solution. Better yet, both Rust and D have superior immutability constructs.

microtonal12y ago

Java's `final` while useful for primitives, it is not really that useful for reference types, which constitute the majority of types.

They are if you use them in conjunction with immutable classes, such as Guava's immutable collections.

Unfortunately, immutability is only a promise and not typed. But in practice, having a member that is final and of an immutable class works well.

2 more replies

pron12y ago

Well, all reference types are eventually made of primitives -- and arrays. The problem with Java's final is that there are no final arrays. This is planned to be resolved in Java 9.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse