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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2716 > unrolled thread

java.lang vs java.util

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

Contents

  java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 17:11 +1300
    Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-01 21:23 -0700
      Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-02 01:52 -0400
        Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:50 -0300
          Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:12 -0400
            Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:37 +1200
              Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
            Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 09:33 -0300
          Re: java.lang vs java.util "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 07:57 -0700
            Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:38 +1200
    Re: java.lang vs java.util Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-04-01 23:43 -0700
      Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 19:52 +1300
        Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
          Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 10:11 +1200
            Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 19:25 -0300
              Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 12:49 +1200
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 22:50 -0300
                  Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 16:05 +1200
                    Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:06 -0300
                      Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 23:10 +1200
                        Re: java.lang vs java.util Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2011-04-04 06:20 -0500
                          Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-04 15:22 +0100
                        Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-04 05:58 -0700
                          Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-06 15:34 -0400
                            Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-07 10:22 +0100
                          Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-05 02:32 +0000
                        Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:41 -0400
                    Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:04 -0300
                    Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-04 07:58 -0400
                      Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:46 -0400
    Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-02 16:22 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2716 — java.lang vs java.util

Surprising to see something defined in java.lang 
<http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html> depend on 
something defined in java.util 
<http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.

Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2719

On 4/1/2011 9:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Surprising to see something defined in java.lang
> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html>  depend on
> something defined in java.util
> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.
>
> Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?

I think Iterable may make it into java.lang because of its significance
in the foreach statement.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2720

On 04/02/2011 12:23 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 9:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Surprising to see something defined in java.lang
>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html> depend on
>> something defined in java.util
>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.
>>
>> Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?

Not if it wants to be consistent with
http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/
don't'cha think?

And the so-called "hierarchy" of java.util and java.lang is that they are 
equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of java.* and 
javax.* packages.

> I think Iterable may make it into java.lang because of its significance
> in the foreach statement.

That seems to go against Java's history of conservatism with respect to 
backward compatibility.  And why should it?  java.lang and java.util are 
equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of java.* and 
javax.* packages.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2739

On 11-04-02 02:52 AM, Lew wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 12:23 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> On 4/1/2011 9:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Surprising to see something defined in java.lang
>>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html>
>>> depend on
>>> something defined in java.util
>>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.
>>>
>>> Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?
> 
> Not if it wants to be consistent with
> http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/
> don't'cha think?
> 
> And the so-called "hierarchy" of java.util and java.lang is that they
> are equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of
> java.* and javax.* packages.
> 
>> I think Iterable may make it into java.lang because of its significance
>> in the foreach statement.
> 
> That seems to go against Java's history of conservatism with respect to
> backward compatibility.  And why should it?  java.lang and java.util are
> equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of java.*
> and javax.* packages.
> 
java.util from Day One has simply been a grab-bag package. The name
"util" already says "we didn't know where else to put it". It's a bad
example and a bad naming choice which has led to innumerable copycats in
the form of not only third-party org.foo.util packages, but the
inevitable follow-on, FooUtils classes (which are almost invariably
grab-bag classes).

I don't know if Patricia was actually _advocating_ such a move, but for
the lion's share of classes and interfaces in java.util, any other
package with a considered name is a better place to put them. There
might be a half-dozen classes and interfaces that could stay in
java.util...like just the "utilities" even.

AHS
-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2741

On 02/04/2011 8:50 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> java.util from Day One has simply been a grab-bag package. The name
> "util" already says "we didn't know where else to put it". It's a bad
> example and a bad naming choice which has led to innumerable copycats in
> the form of not only third-party org.foo.util packages,...

I'm in the position of developing some of my own personal software, 
which I'm organising under ca.queensu.cs.dal (the first 3 of which might 
need to change depending on what my employer decides to say about it). 
So I have ...dal.edfmwk for one particular set of tightly correlated 
libraries, and ..dal.txt for a demo text editor, but I'd rather have 
...dal.something.specialized for all the various "grab bag" classes 
rather than having a dozen ...dal.specialized direct descendants.  Right 
now "something" is util, and the only other thing I can think of to 
replace it is equally generic: "lib".

Do you have any suggestions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2783

In message <whFlp.2500$tC3.1742@newsfe01.iad>, David Lamb wrote:

> I'm in the position of developing some of my own personal software,
> which I'm organising under ca.queensu.cs.dal (the first 3 of which might
> need to change depending on what my employer decides to say about it).

Get your own domain name.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2800

On 02/04/2011 8:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<whFlp.2500$tC3.1742@newsfe01.iad>, David Lamb wrote:
>
>> I'm in the position of developing some of my own personal software,
>> which I'm organising under ca.queensu.cs.dal (the first 3 of which might
>> need to change depending on what my employer decides to say about it).
>
> Get your own domain name.

Maybe eventually, but maybe not; software for educational purposes fits 
into the mandate. But that doesn't solve the part I was interested in at 
the moment, which was what to use instead of "util".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2802

On 11-04-02 10:12 AM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 8:50 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> java.util from Day One has simply been a grab-bag package. The name
>> "util" already says "we didn't know where else to put it". It's a bad
>> example and a bad naming choice which has led to innumerable copycats in
>> the form of not only third-party org.foo.util packages,...
> 
> I'm in the position of developing some of my own personal software,
> which I'm organising under ca.queensu.cs.dal (the first 3 of which might
> need to change depending on what my employer decides to say about it).
> So I have ...dal.edfmwk for one particular set of tightly correlated
> libraries, and ..dal.txt for a demo text editor, but I'd rather have
> ...dal.something.specialized for all the various "grab bag" classes
> rather than having a dozen ...dal.specialized direct descendants.  Right
> now "something" is util, and the only other thing I can think of to
> replace it is equally generic: "lib".
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?

Let's make sure it's not really a package consisting entirely of utility
classes, in which case calling the package "util" is sensible.
Rare...but sensible. A utility class (which one could justify calling
SomethingUtil[s]) generally has a bunch of static/class methods that do
common tasks applicable to (or useful for) a wide variety of objects.

You may genuinely have some classes in there that _are_ utility classes:
if so, separating _those_ out into a "util" package is OK. Other people
may use the name nonsensically, but you'll have it right.

If it's a package containing a variety of non-utility classes that are
simply difficult to classify at the moment, let's agree to agree that
calling the enclosing package "util" is confusing and incorrect, since
it implies that the classes _are_ utility classes. If it's in this state
- a miscellany of classes - I'd be inclined to leave it as

...dal.specialized

which you've noted you don't like (I believe we're assuming that
"specialized" is actually a class name). I don't think there's anything
inherently wrong with that; it actually expresses the inability to group
them further correctly.

AHS

-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2755

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote in message 
news:tYElp.789$rB2.37@newsfe21.iad...
> On 11-04-02 02:52 AM, Lew wrote:
>> On 04/02/2011 12:23 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2011 9:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> Surprising to see something defined in java.lang
>>>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html>
>>>> depend on
>>>> something defined in java.util
>>>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.
>>>>
>>>> Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?
>>
>> Not if it wants to be consistent with
>> http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/
>> don't'cha think?
>>
>> And the so-called "hierarchy" of java.util and java.lang is that they
>> are equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of
>> java.* and javax.* packages.
>>
>>> I think Iterable may make it into java.lang because of its significance
>>> in the foreach statement.
>>
>> That seems to go against Java's history of conservatism with respect to
>> backward compatibility.  And why should it?  java.lang and java.util are
>> equal.  The language reserves for itself the entire panoply of java.*
>> and javax.* packages.
>>
> java.util from Day One has simply been a grab-bag package. The name
> "util" already says "we didn't know where else to put it". It's a bad
> example and a bad naming choice which has led to innumerable copycats in
> the form of not only third-party org.foo.util packages, but the
> inevitable follow-on, FooUtils classes (which are almost invariably
> grab-bag classes).

Collections certainly deserve their own package.  And arrays should 
implement List, as they do in .NET.  (Arrays of objects, anyway -- there are 
obvious issues with arrays of primitives.) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2784

In message <in7dg0$pv$1@dont-email.me>, Mike Schilling wrote:

> Collections certainly deserve their own package.  And arrays should
> implement List, as they do in .NET.  (Arrays of objects, anyway -- there
> are obvious issues with arrays of primitives.)

Python does all this so much more cleanly...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2724

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:11:38 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>Surprising to see something defined in java.lang 
><http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/Iterable.html> depend on 
>something defined in java.util 
><http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/Iterator.html>.
>
>Surely the hierarchy should go the other way?

Android did it that way because Sun did it that way. Why?  It might
have something to do with Iterator/Iterable being introduced late,
after Enumeration.

To me, they both belong in java.lang.util
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Doing what the user expects with respect to navigation is absurdly important for user satisfaction.
~ anonymous Google Android developer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2725

In message <e9hdp69clnqs8hijq8skm1ig0sh4c464ai@4ax.com>, Roedy Green wrote:

> It might have something to do with Iterator/Iterable being introduced
> late, after Enumeration.

Why? They introduced other changes in java.lang.

> To me, they both belong in java.lang.util

Python shows how important iterators can be as a fundamental language 
concept.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2801

On 02/04/2011 2:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<e9hdp69clnqs8hijq8skm1ig0sh4c464ai@4ax.com>, Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> It might have something to do with Iterator/Iterable being introduced
>> late, after Enumeration.
>
> Why? They introduced other changes in java.lang.
>
>> To me, they both belong in java.lang.util
>
> Python shows how important iterators can be as a fundamental language
> concept.

Iterators as a fundamental language construct have been around since the 
'70s.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2813

In message <FoZlp.4488$zn.74@newsfe19.iad>, David Lamb wrote:

> On 02/04/2011 2:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<e9hdp69clnqs8hijq8skm1ig0sh4c464ai@4ax.com>, Roedy Green
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It might have something to do with Iterator/Iterable being introduced
>>> late, after Enumeration.
>>
>> Why? They introduced other changes in java.lang.
>>
>>> To me, they both belong in java.lang.util
>>
>> Python shows how important iterators can be as a fundamental language
>> concept.
> 
> Iterators as a fundamental language construct have been around since the
> '70s.

And yet Java still has trouble with them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2816

On 11-04-03 07:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <FoZlp.4488$zn.74@newsfe19.iad>, David Lamb wrote:
> 
>> On 02/04/2011 2:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<e9hdp69clnqs8hijq8skm1ig0sh4c464ai@4ax.com>, Roedy Green
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might have something to do with Iterator/Iterable being introduced
>>>> late, after Enumeration.
>>>
>>> Why? They introduced other changes in java.lang.
>>>
>>>> To me, they both belong in java.lang.util
>>>
>>> Python shows how important iterators can be as a fundamental language
>>> concept.
>>
>> Iterators as a fundamental language construct have been around since the
>> '70s.
> 
> And yet Java still has trouble with them.

What specific problem is it that you've been unable to tackle in Java
because of these purported shortcomings? I'm not interested in a novice
explanation like "I can solve this problem like this in Python, and when
I try to translate it line-by-line into Java I just can't do it"; I'm
curious as to what the actual problem is that you're struggling with in
Java. We realize you're quite new with the language; you can't be
expected to be expert yet.

AHS
-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2824

In message <dt6mp.2629$0r7.144@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> I'm not interested in a novice explanation like "I can solve this problem
> like this in Python, and when I try to translate it line-by-line into Java
> I just can't do it"

Not that I ever asked for a “line-by-line” translation, but keep right on 
with your prevaricating strawmen, why don’t you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2826

On 11-04-03 09:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <dt6mp.2629$0r7.144@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
>> I'm not interested in a novice explanation like "I can solve this problem
>> like this in Python, and when I try to translate it line-by-line into Java
>> I just can't do it"
> 
> Not that I ever asked for a “line-by-line” translation, but keep right on 
> with your prevaricating strawmen, why don’t you.

You've been quibbling about the inability to do things in Java more or
less like you can do them in Python, which is why I threw that in. If
that's not the issue here, why not answer the real question I had, where
I asked for a specific example (or two) of where you are having problems
with Java iterators?

It's really easy to come out with high-flying statements like "yet Java
still has trouble with them", referring to iterators. People say stuff
like that about practically every construct in any language, and 90+
percent of the time they're adopting a fad started by some pundit. I
expect even dudes like Gosling or Stroustrup or van Rossum to back up
statements like that with some meat; why shouldn't you?

AHS
-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2832

In message <ct9mp.1376$YL5.219@newsfe05.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 11-04-03 09:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <dt6mp.2629$0r7.144@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not interested in a novice explanation like "I can solve this
>>> problem like this in Python, and when I try to translate it line-by-line
>>> into Java I just can't do it"
>> 
>> Not that I ever asked for a “line-by-line” translation, but keep right on
>> with your prevaricating strawmen, why don’t you.
> 
> You've been quibbling about the inability to do things in Java more or
> less like you can do them in Python, which is why I threw that in.

Which reminds me, I’m still waiting for someone to show how they can do this
<http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=ik1en0$gng$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> better 
in Java.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2841

On 11-04-04 01:05 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <ct9mp.1376$YL5.219@newsfe05.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
>> On 11-04-03 09:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <dt6mp.2629$0r7.144@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not interested in a novice explanation like "I can solve this
>>>> problem like this in Python, and when I try to translate it line-by-line
>>>> into Java I just can't do it"
>>>
>>> Not that I ever asked for a “line-by-line” translation, but keep right on
>>> with your prevaricating strawmen, why don’t you.
>>
>> You've been quibbling about the inability to do things in Java more or
>> less like you can do them in Python, which is why I threw that in.
> 
> Which reminds me, I’m still waiting for someone to show how they can do this
> <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=ik1en0$gng$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> better 
> in Java.

Until you provide a design document you may wait for a while. Asking for
people to work off that link is to ask them to do a low-level port of
your Python solution (which may be overly elaborate for the problem) to
Java, without knowing the specifics of the problem. You'd be asking _us_
to do what you just now claimed is a "prevaricating strawman".

This is the only example you can think of - evidently one where you
yourself haven't tried to express it in Java - where iterators in Java
are giving you a hard time? Even hypothetically maybe perhaps?

AHS
-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2843

In message <nKgmp.2643$0r7.2582@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 11-04-04 01:05 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <ct9mp.1376$YL5.219@newsfe05.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11-04-03 09:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <dt6mp.2629$0r7.144@newsfe12.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not interested in a novice explanation like "I can solve this
>>>>> problem like this in Python, and when I try to translate it
>>>>> line-by-line into Java I just can't do it"
>>>>
>>>> Not that I ever asked for a “line-by-line” translation, but keep right
>>>> on with your prevaricating strawmen, why don’t you.
>>>
>>> You've been quibbling about the inability to do things in Java more or
>>> less like you can do them in Python, which is why I threw that in.
>> 
>> Which reminds me, I’m still waiting for someone to show how they can do
>> this
>> <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=ik1en0$gng$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>
>> better in Java.
> 
> Until you provide a design document you may wait for a while.

See, that’s what I mean by lack of agility. It’s not enough to figure out 
what the code does, you need some kind of specification document filled out 
in tedious detail and no doubt signed off in triplicate before you will 
write a single line of code.

And they wonder who I’m referring to when I talk about “corporate code-
cutter drones” ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web