Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <f3532434-49f2-490f-a42d-d83360334f5e@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <iuce66$2nh$1@news.albasani.net> <iud083$2jr$1@news.onet.pl> <iudelj$d4j$1@news.albasani.net> <iuec7b$m01$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.225.157.56
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1309570100 10689 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2011 01:28:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 01:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.225.157.56; posting-account=C7XBLgoAAAAxMpmeFo8Iv_pud1pyFhjy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5816

On Jun 28, 10:12=A0pm,
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
<supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantati...@aver=
ylongandannoyingdomainname.com>
wrote:
> On 28/06/2011 4:43 PM, BGB wrote:
>
> > yeah...
>
> > they made every object lockable but not every object cloneable, where
> > one would think cloning would be generally a higher priority.
>
> If they'd been smarter about managing mutability to begin with (e.g.
> fields immutable by default, objects normally immutable) cloning would
> not be a priority at all.
>
> Sure, the boxed primitives and Strings are immutable, and that's about
> it. We've got mutable stuff out the wazoo, most of which probably
> shouldn't be -- java.util.Date, anyone? Not to mention java.awt.Point
> and friends. All those conundrums about whether Square should be a
> subclass of Rectangle, or Circle of Ellipse, go away if they aren't
> mutable. Then they clearly are subclasses. Mutable collections and
> arrays also make type reasoning more complicated and don't allow casting
> a List<Sub> to a List<Super> as then you might add a non-Sub Super to
> the list. If the list wasn't mutable there'd be no problem casting a
> List<Sub> to a List<Super>.
>
> I could go on...but I won't.

If you want a functional language, go use a functional language and
stop complaining that Java is not a functional language.