Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25659

Re: Why “new”?

From	Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why “new”?
Date	2011-02-08 07:48 -0500
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<iire1f$987$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	<iii71v$3ud$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <lq60l6p3aamn6jjq00271g3mmunebt01if@4ax.com> <4d508054$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iiq27v$flt$3@news.albasani.net> <iiqikh$7cj$1@news.eternal-september.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Roedy Green wrote:
>>>> Java has almost no syntactic sugar other that for:each which came
>>>> quite late in the game. The creators of Java were system programmers.

Lew wrote:
>> Yet what it does have is so sweet! Maybe it doesn't need more sugar.

Mike Schilling wrote:
> A fair amount of what was added in Java 5 (generics aside) was syntactic sugar:
>
> * Variable-parameter functions
> * Autoboxing
> * The enhanced for loop
>
> The last of these is one of my favorite things in the whole language.

for ( int ix = 0; ix < limit; ++ix )

is syntactic sugar for a 'while' loop.

'+=' is syntactic sugar for "add and assign".

'?:' is syntactic sugar for a simple 'if/else'.

Leaving implicit the default constructor or the 'super()' call at the top of a 
constructor are syntactic sugar.

Auto-initialization of member fields to their zero-like value is syntactic sugar.

'synchronized' is syntactic sugar for taking out (and releasing!) a lock on a 
monitor.

'import' is syntactic sugar for FQNs.

Yeah, Roedy, Java has almost no syntactic sugar!

-- 
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
.___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/  | *\##|
|#/ * |   \#|
|#----|----#|
||    |  * ||
|o *  |    o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-07 21:00 -0800
  Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-08 07:48 -0500

csiph-web