Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Arithmetic overflow checking
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:39:27 -0400
Organization: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <j0g0ku$m4r$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <015aeb15-57db-48ab-9cd4-77f8448b632f@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> <2rydnez7l-H5BYnTnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <ivoiap$gru$1@dont-email.me> <drmdnTkz1raR1b3TnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <ivr43p$7cq$1@dont-email.me> <4e278a67$0$309$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1SSVp.69032$_I7.18660@newsfe08.iad> <j08v14$brk$1@speranza.aioe.org> <slrnj2g735.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <bIBWp.70194$_I7.12878@newsfe08.iad> <j0eree$uke$1@speranza.aioe.org> <tFEWp.68513$5v5.34135@newsfe11.iad> <4b8422e6-9ad6-493e-b5a5-3c8a772851de@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cJ+uP0NdDAbt8UCZbZVtiQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6494

On 23/07/2011 2:51 PM, lewbloch wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>> supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations wrote:
>>> Eww. Mutable number classes.
>>
>> It's what happens to ordinary ints in most machine languages. Feel free
>> to define the less-efficient functional versions that always generate
>> new objects. The main point was that the method calls aren't necessarily
>> all that hard to read.
>
> The "Eww" poster seems fond of making tabloid statements devoid of
> engineering reasoning.

Wrong.

Ordinary ints aren't (in Java, at least, with no "int *" type) subject 
to aliasing and other problems that a mutable Integer-analogue would be.

> There's nothing intrinsically wrong with mutable number classes,
> particular for the use case under discussion for them, as long as they
> aren't used where immutable number classes would be better.

See above.

> Though the "Eww" poster is free to provide logic and evidence to
> support a contrary position, if they so desire and have the
> capability.

See above.