Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:32:45 +0200 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <9vdku8Fr5eU1@mid.individual.net> References: <4f90a788$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <30566772.52.1334881887716.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbts20> <9vd7jjFn9sU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net UrnPRCKOHuscsOK5vkt9IwbqmvMWW9sGVLstcUz6ZGAWF6QjY= Cancel-Lock: sha1:czRwKMmcyrd+VJNMQ/qjQwEG2gg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13704 On 20.04.2012 17:05, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > I have used arrays dimensioned [1] in Java where I needed a > primitive type as an object. That was often the approach if one wanted to modify a value in the caller's or other scope. I'd rather have a mutable integer object. > I believed at the time that it was > faster than the other ways to do it. And, was it? Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/