Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #34477
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? |
| Date | 2016-06-05 08:05 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nj14i9$ufe$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <Gosling-20160604185910@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <niva2t$13sk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nivehs$9e0$1@dont-email.me> <nivlkk$1mm2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 6/4/2016 6:44 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/4/2016 4:43 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 6/4/2016 3:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I do not remember ever to have written a class with a constructor
>>> with a single argument of same type.
>>
>> I've done it, but not very often. Usually it's when the class is
>> mutable (for what seem to be good reasons) but I need an instance that
>> won't be mutated:
>
>>> And the only example that I can remember having seen
>>> is java.lang.String. And usage of that is usually a code
>>> smell.
>>
>> Well, the JavaDoc suggests that any class implementing Collection
>> ought to provide a constructor that takes a Collection argument. So
>> we could *almost* say that ArrayList has a constructor that takes a
>> (slightly disguised) ArrayList as its argument. Similar remarks apply
>> to Map.
>
> :-)
>
>> FWIW, Joshua Bloch appears to disagree with Gosling et al. From
>> "Effective Java:"
>>
>> Is all this complexity [of implementing Cloneable] really
>> necessary? Rarely. [...] <b>you are probably better off
>> providing some other means of object copying or simply not
>> providing the capability.</b> [emphasis his]
>>
>> <b>A fine approach to object copying is to provide a <i>copy
>> constructor</i>. [...]</b> [emphasis and italics his]
>>
>> The copy constructor approach and its static factory variant
>> have many advantages over Cloneable/clone [...]
>>
>> So: Who ya gonna trust? The guy who thought unsigned integers
>> were "too complex" or the guy who invented collections?
>
> But that is a slightly different discussion.
>
> Q1: Does Java mostly use Cloneable instead of copy constructor?
>
> A1: Unless we count your *almost* copy constructor then I would
> say YES as an observable fact.
>
> Q2: Should Java use use Cloneable or copy constructor?
>
> A2: <this can be argued>
Gosling et al. vote for Cloneable:
"[...] the preferred way to make a direct copy of an object
is by using the clone method."
Bloch votes against it:
"The copy constructor approach and its static factory variant
have many advantages over Cloneable/clone [...]"
... so it seems to me to be exactly the same discussion.
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-04 15:27 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:43 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-04 18:44 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-05 08:05 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-05 08:31 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 05:22 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:00 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2016-06-06 16:06 +0000
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-06 22:56 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:08 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 08:41 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-07 13:14 +0000
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:30 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:10 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 10:22 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Mike Amling <mamling@chaff.us> - 2016-06-07 15:31 -0500
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 06:31 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-08 10:41 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-08 14:10 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:54 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-08 16:36 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-08 23:11 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 12:20 -0700
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-14 19:10 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 17:12 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-07 23:25 +0200
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 17:33 -0400
Re: Are you sure, Mr. Gosling? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-06 21:18 -0400
csiph-web