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 23:11:29 +0200
Organization: news.netcologne.de
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <nu3eq2$tv6$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
References: <double-20161012130409@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <ntledh$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$1@gioia.aioe.org> <be7ba475-196e-4269-8b6e-e4a88f8305f1@googlegroups.com> <nu30a0$j0r$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> <nu382t$pf6$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:11:30 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: newsreader4.netcologne.de; posting-host="xdsl-87-79-255-186.netcologne.de:87.79.255.186"; logging-data="30694"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@netcologne.de"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100411 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.netcologne.de
In-Reply-To: <nu382t$pf6$1@dont-email.me>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:35805

Responding to 4ndre4:
> On 17/10/2016 18:04, Patrick Roemer wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, replace double with Double in my example. It won't change the 
> conclusions.

It would not change any conclusions, but it would be utterly besides the
point, as well.

The claim was that the Java Math.max() implementation is an example of
"how OO is normally implemented". I have given three examples of other
OO languages where the #max() operation is attached to an object. I'd
consider this the "normal" OO pattern. Java is the odd one out here. I
argue that this is not because the Java designers did "better OO" than
the others, but rather because they were doing no OO at all, lacking any
objects to orient around when working with doubles. In other cases, with
objects readily available, they would do "normal" OO, just looking
at Object#equals(), for example.

In OO, one usually sends messages to objects, which triggers operations
on their encapsulated state. Java's Math.max() is not how OO is
"normally" done in my book.

Best regards,
Patrick