So i was wondering what notation would be neat for first-class references to properties, methods and fields, for this so-called "First Class Java" exercise.
Since we have .class notation for Class eg. Person.class, my first thought was to have something similar eg. .property, .field, .method - waddayathink?!
For example, let's say our Person.class has a property username. Then we could refer to its PropertyDescriptor as Person.username.property. We might also refer to it's Field and accessor Method as Person.username.field and Person.getUsername.method.
Comrades here have been touting using a hash (which is quite neat) eg. Person#getUsername (for first-class method referencing), and we see things like Person->username for properties. The question is then what non-conflicting notation for fields!?
(As an amusing side bar on hash notation, many years ago i was hosting two decidedly non-techie friends from London, and roped them into a geeky Linux User Group year-end dinner party. They got thoroughly bored, their heads down with all this technobabble going around and over their heads. The only time i saw them whip their heads up was when they heard the word "hash." Disappointingly for them, not the type they could converse about, but rather further technospeak related to unix scripts, which caused a further shoulder-drop. Heh heh.)
Back to the beef. Besides the hash and -> notations, for closures we see a => notation being bandied about willy-nilly. Urrrrgh!
The problem is that firstly, i personally dislike with a revulsion that is impossible to put into words adequately, such double-dastardly punctuation symbols like C/C++'s hideous ->, and => is even worse! Having said that, i don't mind C/C++'s &, and of course we all love it's dot notation for referencing.
Given that we have too many first-class thingymajigs like properties, methods, fields, and given that Java's preference in general is words rather than punctuation, eg. extends rather than C++'s doubly-distastful colons, i say using words like .method is better, and inline with Java's existing "dot-word notation" for meta-majiggies ie. .class.
In general, less char's is not better. (Where by "char's" i mean "characters," as a case in point.) Java takes the approach of readability over brevity, eg. lastKnownWhereabouts over lstKnwnWhabs, and extends rather than colons. (Lemme not launch into a whole tirade about unixen /usr and /tmp, and the elitist-obscuritism to which i am philosophically and psychotically indisposed.)
Given the above, a related point on the subject of closures is, sure, introduce closures if it's gonna simplify and robustify our libraries, API's and programs. But let's continue Java's legacy of beautiful readability rather than introducing the dastardliness of C++'s duplicitious punctiliousness.
Enough semantic monkeying around from me - please restore some sense and sensibility to this posting with your affably obliging comments - thank you very much! :) ]]>
What is the point of this exercise you ask? To have something to think about and doodle about when i'm in my favourite coffee shop, and a topic to blog and converse about like now.
Now i can't remember all of my wishlist exactly because i left it at home and i'm quite literally a thousand miles from home at the moment...
Firstly, i consider productivity highly related to the IDE, rather than the compactness of the language's syntax per se. And readability to be more important than code brevity in itself. Also, i don't want to use a language that has a syntax wildly dissimilar to C and Java which i know and love. That means that C# is an option, but one i hope i'll never take, so forget i even said that just now!
Now for argument's sake, say i'm very keen on some new language feature eg. first-class properties. Practically speaking, all i see and care about, is the view of the code as presented and portrayed to me by the IDE i use. So actually, if my IDE had a "first-class properties language module" that presented properties neatly for me, that's all i care about, isn't it!? If my IDE generates and hides the boilerplate of getters and setters, going beyond simple code-folding
into observability and what-not, and cleverly presents and supports completion and refactoring of property literals for me, i'd surely be as deliriously happy and as blissfully ignorant as a pig in strawberries, wouldn't i!? Tangentially, my personal philosophy is that being deliriously happy is circumferential to being blissfully ignorant. Hey, I don't even know what that means, and that's what i dig about it, man!
Reading a few blogs et al, one gets the impression that everyone immediately assumes that Android will be a success. Arguably Google's brand, money, reputation, talent, web apps and userbase all but guarantee this, as illustrated by the size and scope of the Open Handset Alliance. However this alliance excludes Sun and Nokia for example, who have been investing in existing mobile Java platforms for quite some time. Might JavaFX Mobile eg. an opensource JavaSE/JavaME/Linux mobile stack, join the Blackberry, the iPhone and Android as a smartphone game-changer?
So JavaFX Mobile is the mobile software stack formerly known as SavaJE. Looking at the spelling, we guess that SavaJE was about JavaSE on mobiles. Its apps are written in Java, including the telephony ones, 'cos it affords full access to the handset's telephony hardware functionality, eg. for making calls, handling SMS'es and what-not.
Maybe JavaME offers relatively limited access to the hardware? Certainly it's not full-blown desktop Java either.
We have great opensource desktop software like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME and all their apps - to suggest that we are just going to throw all that away and be left with a single app, the web-browser, as a single full-screen window, with all our apps running inside it,
ie. supplant the likes of KDE and GNOME with just Firefox on X, is just silly.