Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!.POSTED.xdsl-87-79-255-186.netcologne.de!not-for-mail
From: Patrick Roemer <sangamon@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: double == double
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:04:00 +0200
Organization: news.netcologne.de
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <nu30a0$j0r$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
References: <double-20161012130409@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <ntledh$lfi$1@dont-email.me> <8737k0qd38.fsf@golem.phantasia.org> <87zim5es30.fsf@golem.phantasia.org> <nttf6l$nml$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ntu9de$6uj$1@dont-email.me> <ntuhmi$cdr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ntuntn$slf$2@dont-email.me> <nu00a0$5sj$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nu00ks$edh$5@dont-email.me> <nu063a$edp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nu075n$4cs$1@dont-email.me> <nu0bcj$nbt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nu0dsb$kv3$3@dont-email.me> <nu0g1b$vt5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <nu0qtc$eiu$1@dont-email.me> <nu1e88$9gn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <be7ba475-196e-4269-8b6e-e4a88f8305f1@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:04:00 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: newsreader4.netcologne.de; posting-host="xdsl-87-79-255-186.netcologne.de:87.79.255.186"; logging-data="19483"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@netcologne.de"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100411 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.netcologne.de
In-Reply-To: <be7ba475-196e-4269-8b6e-e4a88f8305f1@googlegroups.com>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:35802

Responding to a.laforgia@gmail.com:
> On Monday, 17 October 2016 03:51:55 UTC+1, Arne Vajhøj  wrote:
>> Having data and methods operating on the data separate is
>> very non-OO'ish in my book.
> 
> That's a kind of purist approach that I find very little pragmatic. Having methods that act on data is how OO is normally implemented.
> 
> This:
> 
>         double d1 = 3.4;
>         double d2 = 5.6;
>         double dMax = Math.max(d1, d2);
> 
> is certainly better than this:
> 
>     class PairOfDoubles {
>         double d1;
>         double d2;
> 
>         public PairOfDoubles(double d1, double d2) {
>             this.d1 = d1;
>             this.d2 = d2;
>         }
> 
>         public double max() {
>             return d1 >= d2 ? d1 : d2;
>         }
>     }

Doubles are not objects in Java, which may be considered a flaw in the
language itself from an OO point of view, so it's a bit problematic to
use them in a discussion of good OO design.

In other OO (or hybrid) languages the max API looks different than in
Java, and the Java way would likely be considered "non-OO". Take Scala,...

scala> 1.23.max(3.14)
res0: Double = 3.14

...Smalltalk,...

st> 1.23 max: 3.14
3.14

...or, kind of an outlier, Ruby.

irb(main):001:0> [1.23, 3.14].max
=> 3.14

"Normally" one might add the operation to the type itself in Java, as
well. Exceptions are multiple possible implementations given a single
type (e.g. when choosing Comparator over Comparable), 3rd party classes
one cannot extend with new methods, or simply lack of objects to get all
OO about at all (your example).

Best regards,
Patrick