Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.gui > #3853 > unrolled thread

Re: The pain of autoboxin

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.gui

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The pain of autoboxin "Lew" <lew@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this> - 2011-04-27 15:47 +0000

#3853 — Re: The pain of autoboxin

  To: comp.lang.java.gui
Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> There's nothing right about autoboxing. And no, I don't want to talk
> about it.

There, there.  Actually, I sympathize.

There is no need for you to talk about it.  Sometimes things are just too 
painful to discuss.  Maybe someday when you can face your feelings more fully 
you can master autoboxing and gain what utility it does offer.

I just only expect autoboxing to be what it is.  If it doesn't behave the way 
I expect, I review the rules and correct my mistake.  In places where it's 
inconvenient, I don't use it, just like I don't use reflection in places where 
it's inconvenient or wrong.  Why waste time wishing for it to be what it is not?

For the most part, explicit conversion between primitives and their wrappers 
is better quality engineering and better code documentation than autoboxing 
provides.  Autoboxing was a sop to the whiners who thought overt primitive 
wrapping was "too much code", instead of being the statement of intent it 
should be.  It's an idiom for code writers, not code maintainers.

Programming is hard.

-- 
Lew

---
 * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out free usenet!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.gui

csiph-web