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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #13664 > unrolled thread

no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think?

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

Contents

  no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-19 18:27 -0500
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-19 20:02 -0400
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 17:31 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-20 15:45 +0200
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-20 15:05 +0000
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-20 19:32 +0200
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 20:47 -0700
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-04-19 17:45 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-19 21:22 -0400
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-19 21:16 -0500
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-04-19 23:11 -0700
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-19 21:35 -0300
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-19 21:31 -0400
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 19:22 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-04-19 23:15 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 07:45 -0700
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-20 08:20 -0700
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 19:57 -0700
                Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 04:25 -0700
                  Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-04-21 07:05 -0500
                    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 07:42 -0700
                      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 12:55 -0700
                        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 13:27 -0700
                          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 13:34 -0700
                            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 14:01 -0700
                            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-21 23:48 +0000
                              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 17:46 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-20 08:08 -0700
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-20 16:46 +0000
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 12:52 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-20 08:17 -0700
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-04-20 09:02 -0700
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 12:48 -0700
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-04-20 21:08 -0400
                Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-21 01:55 +0000
                  Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 04:28 -0700
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-04-19 19:36 -0500
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Tsukino Usagi <usagi@tsukino.ca> - 2012-04-20 15:27 +0900
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-20 07:04 -0300
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Tsukino Usagi <usagi@tsukino.ca> - 2012-04-20 22:17 +0900
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-20 15:59 +0200
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 14:21 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 19:11 -0400
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Tsukino Usagi <usagi@tsukino.ca> - 2012-04-20 22:16 +0900
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-20 15:55 +0200
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-04-20 07:49 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 19:19 -0400
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 07:58 -0700
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-04-20 20:08 +0100
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 12:54 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-20 21:48 +0000
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 16:45 -0700
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-21 01:56 +0000
                Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 04:35 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-04-20 16:24 -0600
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 19:08 -0400
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-04-20 18:14 -0500
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 19:22 -0400
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 20:36 -0400
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-20 05:33 -0700
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Bernd Nawothnig <Bernd.Nawothnig@t-online.de> - 2012-04-20 20:53 +0200
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-20 13:36 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Bernd Nawothnig <Bernd.Nawothnig@t-online.de> - 2012-04-21 10:20 +0200
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-23 10:24 -0700
              Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:39 -0700
                Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 15:06 -0700
                  Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 17:07 -0700
                    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 00:48 -0700
                      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-25 08:20 -0700
                        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 08:59 -0700
                          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-25 10:32 -0700
                Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Tsukino Usagi <usagi@tsukino.ca> - 2012-04-29 23:03 +0900
                  Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 10:28 -0700
        Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 08:55 -0700
          Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-21 12:56 -0700
            Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 13:41 -0700
    Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2012-04-20 16:50 +0200
      Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-20 19:04 -0400

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#13746

On 4/21/2012 5:05 AM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> Lew<noone@lewscanon.com>  wrote:
>>
>> How sizeable is this sadly mistaken minority?
>>
>> If they all thought the world were flat, would that make them correct?
>
> Language isn't defined by an objective physical reality, though, but
> by usage -- which is why "awful" and "awesome" today have opposite
> meanings.
>

yes, and why people might actually disagree regarding the usage of 
various terms.

for objective reality, people can go and measure and test stuff.
for language use, it more amounts to consensus, and languages change 
over time:
this can be drastic, as in the differences between English and German;
this can be more subtle, as in the differences between the US California 
dialect and Londoner dialects of English;
or it can be things like the specific uses of certain terms.

so, it is all a bit more informal and fluid, and not nearly so much 
about people being somehow chained to a dictionary or similar.


even regarding objective reality, there is still some room for disagreement:
competition between conventions and theories;
various ways of interpreting the results of various measurements or 
experiments;
...

rarely are things so simply black and white.

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

#13750

BGB wrote:
> Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
>> Lew<noone@lewscanon.com wrote:
>>>
>>> How sizeable is this sadly mistaken minority?
>>>
>>> If they all thought the world were flat, would that make them correct?
>>
>> Language isn't defined by an objective physical reality, though, but
>> by usage -- which is why "awful" and "awesome" today have opposite
>> meanings.
>>
>
> yes, and why people might actually disagree regarding the usage of various terms.
>
> for objective reality, people can go and measure and test stuff.
> for language use, it more amounts to consensus, and languages change over time:
> this can be drastic, as in the differences between English and German;
> this can be more subtle, as in the differences between the US California
> dialect and Londoner dialects of English;
> or it can be things like the specific uses of certain terms.
>
> so, it is all a bit more informal and fluid, and not nearly so much about
> people being somehow chained to a dictionary or similar.
>
>
> even regarding objective reality, there is still some room for disagreement:
> competition between conventions and theories;
> various ways of interpreting the results of various measurements or experiments;
> ...
>
> rarely are things so simply black and white.

Fortunately, in today's world, the meanings of "dozen" and "teens" are so 
simply black and white. While your statement as a poster-saying superficial 
generality is correct, in the particulars of these terms it's sadly mistaken.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#13755

On 4/21/2012 12:55 PM, Lew wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
>>> Lew<noone@lewscanon.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How sizeable is this sadly mistaken minority?
>>>>
>>>> If they all thought the world were flat, would that make them correct?
>>>
>>> Language isn't defined by an objective physical reality, though, but
>>> by usage -- which is why "awful" and "awesome" today have opposite
>>> meanings.
>>>
>>
>> yes, and why people might actually disagree regarding the usage of
>> various terms.
>>
>> for objective reality, people can go and measure and test stuff.
>> for language use, it more amounts to consensus, and languages change
>> over time:
>> this can be drastic, as in the differences between English and German;
>> this can be more subtle, as in the differences between the US California
>> dialect and Londoner dialects of English;
>> or it can be things like the specific uses of certain terms.
>>
>> so, it is all a bit more informal and fluid, and not nearly so much about
>> people being somehow chained to a dictionary or similar.
>>
>>
>> even regarding objective reality, there is still some room for
>> disagreement:
>> competition between conventions and theories;
>> various ways of interpreting the results of various measurements or
>> experiments;
>> ...
>>
>> rarely are things so simply black and white.
>
> Fortunately, in today's world, the meanings of "dozen" and "teens" are
> so simply black and white. While your statement as a poster-saying
> superficial generality is correct, in the particulars of these terms
> it's sadly mistaken.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozen

as noted, 13, 14, and 10 notions of "dozen" are listed, in addition to 
the usual 12.

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

#13756

BGB wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> rarely are things so simply black and white.
>>
>> Fortunately, in today's world, the meanings of "dozen" and "teens" are
>> so simply black and white. While your statement as a poster-saying
>> superficial generality is correct, in the particulars of these terms
>> it's sadly mistaken.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozen
>
> as noted, 13, 14, and 10 notions of "dozen" are listed, in addition to the
> usual 12.

I stand corrected, in the sense that any number can be used approximately.

When someone says, "I had twelve phone calls", they might mean more or less 
than twelve, but the meaning of the word "twelve" remains precise.

No one I've heard of before you denied that "dozen" means twelve, even when 
used approximately like any other number. So yes, "dozen" can mean 
"approximately a dozen" in the same way that any number "N" can mean 
"approximately N". Do you dispute that "12" means exactly a particular number 
even though it can be used approximately?

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#13758

On 4/21/2012 1:34 PM, Lew wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> BGB wrote:
>>>> rarely are things so simply black and white.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, in today's world, the meanings of "dozen" and "teens" are
>>> so simply black and white. While your statement as a poster-saying
>>> superficial generality is correct, in the particulars of these terms
>>> it's sadly mistaken.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozen
>>
>> as noted, 13, 14, and 10 notions of "dozen" are listed, in addition to
>> the
>> usual 12.
>
> I stand corrected, in the sense that any number can be used approximately.
>
> When someone says, "I had twelve phone calls", they might mean more or
> less than twelve, but the meaning of the word "twelve" remains precise.
>
> No one I've heard of before you denied that "dozen" means twelve, even
> when used approximately like any other number. So yes, "dozen" can mean
> "approximately a dozen" in the same way that any number "N" can mean
> "approximately N". Do you dispute that "12" means exactly a particular
> number even though it can be used approximately?
>

well, given 12 is a number, it indicates a specific value.

"dozen" normally means 12, and "teens" normally means 13-19, but in both 
cases I have seen occasional variation on these points regarding usage 
of the term.


oddly, when applied to people, the term "teens" is sometimes also used 
to refer to people in their 20s, despite this being technically 
incorrect (maybe has something to do with movies and TV, where most 
"teenage" characters are played by people in their 20s or sometimes 
30s... although I know of at least one show where an actress who is 20 
plays a character who is supposed to be 9, maybe because she is small...).


or such...

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

#13776

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I stand corrected, in the sense that any number can be used 
> approximately.

> When someone says, "I had twelve phone calls", they might 
> mean more or less than twelve, but the meaning of the word 
> "twelve" remains precise.

> No one I've heard of before you denied that "dozen" means 
> twelve, even when  used approximately like any other number. 

OK, but how many is "dozens?" Is it only integer multiples of 12,
or other multiples?

-- glen

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

#13778

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> OK, but how many is "dozens?" Is it only integer multiples of 12,
> or other multiples?

I would apply the normal rules for plurals, unless you're referring to the 
modern version of flyting, in which case the word is a plural construed as a 
singular.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#13698

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:15:35 -0700, Peter Duniho
<NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote:
>
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> This is the teens of the 21st century after all.
>> 
>> Quibble: Not until next year.
>
>Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted
>that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000.  :)  The concept of "teens"
>may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others.

     An amusing thing just occurred to me.

     We are the sort of people that insist on getting things right,
things like the new millennium and new century starting 2001-01-01
(and "millennium" being spelled with two N's, but that is another
battle).  To us, neither time period started until a year later than
the 2000ers think.

     And yet, and yet, we often start counting at zero which is one
earlier than most do!

>(For the record, I'm with you, but I hardly ever try to explain this sort
>of mistake to people who make them any more :) )

     It is worth it to weed out people w.r.t. use of logic.  Explain
it once.  If the person gets it, fine.  If not and especially if the
person argues with you on it, *WEED OUT*.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13703

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:15:35 -0700, Peter Duniho
> <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:

(snip)
>>Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted
>>that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000.  :)  The concept 
>> of "teens" may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others.

(snip)
>     We are the sort of people that insist on getting things right,
> things like the new millennium and new century starting 2001-01-01
> (and "millennium" being spelled with two N's, but that is another
> battle).  To us, neither time period started until a year later than
> the 2000ers think.

>     And yet, and yet, we often start counting at zero which is one
> earlier than most do!

While we are in the third millenium and the 21st century, I never
hear anyone say that we are in the 202nd decade. I don't ever
remember anyone saying we were in the 199th, 200th, or 201st
decade, either.

It seems to me that decades don't count the same way as centuries.

In addition, with a few year uncertainty in the actual date
that christ was born, worrying about the difference in millennia
seems a little strange. 

-- glen

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

#13709

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> While we are in the third millenium and the 21st century, I never
> hear anyone say that we are in the 202nd decade. I don't ever
> remember anyone saying we were in the 199th, 200th, or 201st
> decade, either.

I had an argument in 1980 with someone who claimed that 1980 belonged to the 70s, not the 80s. I was responding to an argument that ten belonged in the teens.

These are *linguistic* terms, not scientific ones. They mean what society has them mean, and by the party metric, society deemed 2000 as the beginning of the millennium. I agree.

It's all by convention. I follow that convention, and I am far from alone.

> It seems to me that decades don't count the same way as centuries.
> 
> In addition, with a few year uncertainty in the actual date
> that christ [sic] was born, worrying about the difference in millennia
> seems a little strange. 

And unnecessary. The "where's the party?" rule completely resolves the problem.

If there's one thing pretty well established, it's that Jesus couldn't have been born on January 1, which was New Year's Day in the pre-Christian era anyway, nor even on December 25. So Christs's birthday has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Zero, like the year that began the millennium count (a.k.a. 1 BC).

-- 
Lew

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

#13699

On 04/19/2012 11:15 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote:
>
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> This is the teens of the 21st century after all.
>>
>> Quibble: Not until next year.
>
> Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted
> that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000.  :)  The concept of "teens"
> may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others.

But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium other than the 
day after whenever it was hardest to get New Year's Eve hotel reservations at 
Times Square. Prince didn't write "party like it's 2000" or entitle his album 
"2000". There weren't mass panics at the end of 1000, but at the end of 999.

I thumb my nose at those who pedantically insist that the millennium must 
begin in 2001 because there was no "year zero" and remind them that there was 
no "year one" either until about what, three or four centuries later, and no 
agreement on that for millennia after.

Nor did those early years begin on Jan. 1. So really the pedants should claim 
April 2, 2001, as Millennium Day, accounting for the Gregorian calendar shift.

And if thirteen years starts the "teens", then they start April 2, 2014.

Half-assed pedants; don't even follow through.

I'm'a go where the party at while y'all argue over when the millennium begins.

> (For the record, I'm with you, but I hardly ever try to explain this sort
> of mistake to people who make them any more :) )

I enjoy it.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#13702

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:17:52 -0700, Lew wrote:

> On 04/19/2012 11:15 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote:
>>
>>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> This is the teens of the 21st century after all.
>>>
>>> Quibble: Not until next year.
>>
>> Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted
>> that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000.  :)  The concept of "teens"
>> may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others.
> 
> But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium other than the 
> day after whenever it was hardest to get New Year's Eve hotel reservations at 
> Times Square. [...]

You would be correct, except you're not.  If I thought the people making
the mistake I'm talking about actually understood the point you're making,
and were just arbitrarily reassigning the term "millennium", you'd have a
point.

But they don't.  They are specifically looking at the count of years and
falsely imagine that on Jan 1, 2000, two sets of 1000-year intervals have
passed.

> [...]
> I thumb my nose at those who pedantically insist that the millennium must 
> begin in 2001 because there was no "year zero" and remind them that there was 
> no "year one" either until about what, three or four centuries later, and no 
> agreement on that for millennia after.

But there _has_ been an agreement at this point.  The fact that the
calendar has been in flux over the ages is irrelevant.  We _have_ a current
agrement on the arbitrarily-fixed standard beginning of our calender.  To
overlook that is ignorant.

I'm particularly amused at your "I thumb my nose..." comment, since you are
by far the most pedantic, rule-mongering person here, going so far as to
berate people over completely irrelevant topics such as naming conventions,
tab stops, and the like.

> [...]
> And if thirteen years starts the "teens", then they start April 2, 2014.

If pigs were birds, they could fly.  Start an "if/then" with a false
premise, and the whole statement is true, but meaningless.  You yourself
have already pointed out that "teens" comes from the sound of the name, not
the counting of the years, so why bring that pointless statement up?

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

#13712

Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:17:52 -0700, Lew wrote:
> 
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >> Lew wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> >>>> This is the teens of the 21st century after all.
> >>>
> >>> Quibble: Not until next year.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted
> >> that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000.  :)  The concept of "teens"
> >> may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others.
> > 
> > But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium other than the 
> > day after whenever it was hardest to get New Year's Eve hotel reservations at 
> > Times Square. [...]
> 
> You would be correct, except you're not.  If I thought the people making
> the mistake I'm talking about actually understood the point you're making,
> and were just arbitrarily reassigning the term "millennium", you'd have a
> point.
> 
> But they don't.  They are specifically looking at the count of years and
> falsely imagine that on Jan 1, 2000, two sets of 1000-year intervals have
> passed.

Two sets of 1000-year intervals *have* passed.

Since the year zero. Defined as 1000 years prior to when people first reacted to "the millennium".

You go on and miss the party, Peter. I'll have fun there without you.

-- 
Lew

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

#13729

On 20/04/2012 12:02 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:17:52 -0700, Lew wrote:
>> But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium other than the
>> day after whenever it was hardest to get New Year's Eve hotel reservations at
>> Times Square. [...]
>
> You would be correct, except you're not.  If I thought the people making
> the mistake I'm talking about actually understood the point you're making,
> and were just arbitrarily reassigning the term "millennium", you'd have a
> point.
>
> But they don't.  They are specifically looking at the count of years and
> falsely imagine that on Jan 1, 2000, two sets of 1000-year intervals have
> passed.

No, they're deciding that when the leading digit changes is more 
important than whether a year zero ever existed. Like Lew has been 
saying, *language* depends on the way the common people use words, not 
on what pedants think words ought to mean. I have often lamented when 
people "misuse" my favourite words, but I've become resigned in this 
area to masses winning out over the cognoscenti.

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

#13730

David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 12:02 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:17:52 -0700, Lew wrote:
>>> But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium 
>>> other than the day after whenever it was hardest to get 
>>> New Year's Eve hotel reservations at Times Square. [...]

> No, they're deciding that when the leading digit changes is more 
> important than whether a year zero ever existed. Like Lew has 
> been saying, *language* depends on the way the common people use 
> words, not on what pedants think words ought to mean. I have 
> often lamented when people "misuse" my favourite words, but 
> I've become resigned in this area to masses winning out over 
> the cognoscenti.

If you think about it enough, you wonder why celebrate anything
related to special numbers. Not only that, these depend specifically
on the decimal representation. Shouldn't changes to the leading
digit in other bases also be important?

We like to celebrate birthdays, but again give special consideration
to those when the leading digit changes, though in that case
start counting at zero.

(As I understand it, in the Chinese system you are born one, and
add one on Chinese (lunar) new year.)

Now, when Kennedy promised to land on the moon before the decade
was out, did he mean 1969 or 1970? It seems that NASA believed
he meant 1969. (The July launch gave them some margin for later
tries if that one didn't make it.)

-- glen

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

#13740

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Now, when Kennedy promised to land on the moon before the decade
> was out, did he mean 1969 or 1970? It seems that NASA believed
> he meant 1969. (The July launch gave them some margin for later
> tries if that one didn't make it.)

Well, of course. The decades question was already cited upthread as 
non-controversial. No one for a millisecond back then thought he meant after 
January 1, 1970, I assure you.

It certainly would be silly to regard nineteen-*seven*ty as part of the 
*six*ties, wouldn't it?

What possible hyperpedantic and stupid "reasoning" could be used to claim 
otherwise?

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#13669

On 4/19/2012 6:27 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> According to
>
> "To Java SE 8, and Beyond! Simon Ritter Technology Evangelist, Oracle"
>
> (Google the string "To Java SE 8 and Beyond!" and click on
> the PDF file, about the 5th link down the page)
>
> On page 42, it says:
>
> "Unified type system (JDK 10+)
> No more primitives, make everything objects"
>
> I've seen very little discussion on this very important
> subject.

First off, this is listed as an idea (explicitly differentiated from the 
earlier bullet points which were presented more as "we really want this 
to get in").

> What do the experts here think of the idea?
>
> For me, and I am no expert, I think it will be good to have
> a consistent type model (everything is an object), but I am
> worried that the performance will take a hit (computational finite
> elements methods, large meshes, etc...), unless PC's and computers
> will become 1000 times faster by the time JDK 10+ comes in few years
> from now, which might be possible.

The Java language was designed when JIT technology was still moderately 
weak. Thanks in large part to Java, the performance of JITs has 
drastically improved over the last two decades, while the onset of 
JavaScript as a major performance target for JITs has also focused some 
of the research into improving performance in those cases. Note that 
JavaScript doesn't distinguish between integers and floating points (all 
arithmetic in JS is 100% double!), not to mention the problems related 
to weak and dynamic typing. This means that the performance assumptions 
of what would be slow aren't necessarily the case.

A lot of it depends on how the "removal" of primitive types work, 
especially considering the need for backwards compatibility in Java. If 
they decide to make minimal changes to the VM spec (which, given 
history, has been the case), then it may just be compiler sugar for 
certain operations. Then again, the slides also indicate a more forceful 
modification to the Java type system.

The change, in short, strikes me much more of a "let int be treated as a 
subclass of Object." Theorizing possible implementation strategies, it's 
extremely feasible [1] to let the cost of this change in terms of 
performance be limited entirely to where int is actually used as an 
Object--i.e., where it would need to be boxed/unboxed. Given that the 
JVM is already capable of optimizing away boxing/unboxing even now, I 
suspect that the cost would be even lower than that. In other words, 
it's a feature you won't pay for unless you use it.

[1] Basic implementation idea: make a shell class (i.e., the internal 
int.class object) otherwise unobservable that inherits from Object. 
Whenever you "convert" int -> Object, wrap it in that shell class. It's 
fairly simple to implement--I ended up doing something similar in an 
undergrad compilers course.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#13680

On 4/20/2012 8:27 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
> On page 42, it says:
>
> "Unified type system (JDK 10+)
> No more primitives, make everything objects"
>
> I've seen very little discussion on this very important
> subject.
>
> What do the experts here think of the idea?

It's impossible. Whatever they mean when they say "remove primitives" 
cannot possibly be what those words actually mean. Just think, how would 
it be possible to state a = a + 1 without the number 1? Ok, so you can 
use .add(Integer x). But how precisely do you call it? .add(1)? There's 
still a 1. And what's worse is if numbers act like objects, which 
introduces it's own dangerous problem. Is the number 5 really 5, or is 
it something else? Treating primitives like objects, without them 
actually being objects, is UN-neccessary and confusing.

5.length() or 5.size()? Well if 5 is an object I should be able to 
over-ride it.

Class 6 Extends 14 {}

Is that what they mean, or do they mean they will just treat numbers 
/like/ objects? I guess I need more information. In the absence of a 
good reason, I don't believe such a change will ever actually make it 
into Java.

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

#13682

On 12-04-20 03:27 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 8:27 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>
>> On page 42, it says:
>>
>> "Unified type system (JDK 10+)
>> No more primitives, make everything objects"
>>
>> I've seen very little discussion on this very important
>> subject.
>>
>> What do the experts here think of the idea?
> 
> It's impossible. Whatever they mean when they say "remove primitives"
> cannot possibly be what those words actually mean. Just think, how would
> it be possible to state a = a + 1 without the number 1? Ok, so you can
> use .add(Integer x). But how precisely do you call it? .add(1)? There's
> still a 1. And what's worse is if numbers act like objects, which
> introduces it's own dangerous problem. Is the number 5 really 5, or is
> it something else? Treating primitives like objects, without them
> actually being objects, is UN-neccessary and confusing.
> 
> 5.length() or 5.size()? Well if 5 is an object I should be able to
> over-ride it.
> 
> Class 6 Extends 14 {}
> 
> Is that what they mean, or do they mean they will just treat numbers
> /like/ objects? I guess I need more information. In the absence of a
> good reason, I don't believe such a change will ever actually make it
> into Java.

However they do things there will be problems and concerns. What you
talk about is not likely to be one of them. In a system where all things
are objects, numeric literals are objects: they are syntactic sugar.

a = 2;

really means

a = new Integer(2);

and

a = a + 1;

means that a is some Number and you're adding Integer(1) to it. Who
cares that underneath the hood the compiler translates that to (int)13 +
(int)1?

Just because you've got literals doesn't mean that you need primitives.

As for instance calls on a literal, you and I already do that with
String literals. E.g. "some string".length().

I think you can see that in your example '5' is an instance; Java is
class-oriented for inheritance/extension, not object-oriented, so you
won't be extending an instance. But yes, we'd expect that you could do
5.someMethod(), for instance methods that make sense.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#13688

On 4/20/2012 7:04 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-04-20 03:27 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 8:27 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>
>>> On page 42, it says:
>>>
>>> "Unified type system (JDK 10+)
>>> No more primitives, make everything objects"
>>>
>>> I've seen very little discussion on this very important
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> What do the experts here think of the idea?
>>
>> It's impossible. Whatever they mean when they say "remove primitives"
>> cannot possibly be what those words actually mean. Just think, how would
>> it be possible to state a = a + 1 without the number 1? Ok, so you can
>> use .add(Integer x). But how precisely do you call it? .add(1)? There's
>> still a 1. And what's worse is if numbers act like objects, which
>> introduces it's own dangerous problem. Is the number 5 really 5, or is
>> it something else? Treating primitives like objects, without them
>> actually being objects, is UN-neccessary and confusing.
>>
>> 5.length() or 5.size()? Well if 5 is an object I should be able to
>> over-ride it.
>>
>> Class 6 Extends 14 {}
>>
>> Is that what they mean, or do they mean they will just treat numbers
>> /like/ objects? I guess I need more information. In the absence of a
>> good reason, I don't believe such a change will ever actually make it
>> into Java.
>
> However they do things there will be problems and concerns. What you
> talk about is not likely to be one of them. In a system where all things
> are objects, numeric literals are objects: they are syntactic sugar.
>
> a = 2;
>
> really means
>
> a = new Integer(2);
>
> and
>
> a = a + 1;
>
> means that a is some Number and you're adding Integer(1) to it. Who
> cares that underneath the hood the compiler translates that to (int)13 +
> (int)1?
>
> Just because you've got literals doesn't mean that you need primitives.
>
> As for instance calls on a literal, you and I already do that with
> String literals. E.g. "some string".length().
>
> I think you can see that in your example '5' is an instance; Java is
> class-oriented for inheritance/extension, not object-oriented, so you
> won't be extending an instance. But yes, we'd expect that you could do
> 5.someMethod(), for instance methods that make sense.
>
> AHS

I get what your saying, my point was exactly that requiring Integer(1) 
is ridiculous. If your going to type "1", type "1" and be done with it.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web