Summary of JDK1.5 Language Changes

An anonymous reader writes "Over at java.sun.com, there's an informative article about the new features in JDK1.5. Some of the changes like generics are nice and should make some things easier. Some of the enhancements to me are purely sugar, like enumerators. When it comes down to it, once the code is compiled, it's the same. The thing I hope is, some of this new syntactic sugar doesn't result in more obfuscated code. Unlike some people, I feel using programming shorthand leads to increased maintenance. This is especially true when you have to debug a complex application."

Programming shortcuts

[GGardner]

I feel using programming shorthand leads to increased maintenance

I agree. This is why I never create my own functions or methods. Evey program should be just one big function.

Longing for the good ol' days

[hrbrmstr]

I remember - back in the day - when new language feature discussions weren't so contrived and "happy!"

Q: What's wrong with happy/contrived Q&A "articles"?

A: I was hoping you'd ask!

While humor and a semi-light tone are good ways to make technical discussions accessible to more people, treating folks like children who need to be entertained and talked-down to does more to alienate professional developers than it does to attract new converts.

Having said that, I am *really* looking forward to the "foreach" in 1.5 and the auto-boxing/un-boxing. While mucking with an established language is tricky - and potentially dangerous (from an acceptance p.o.v.) - the community process seems to be working out well for Sun and giving developers what they have wanted for years.

Let's just hope that the next "preview" of new features is more in the style of traditional FAQ's.

Wow, how intelligent

[Rombuu]

When it comes down to it, once the code is compiled, it's the same.

Hell, lets write everything on fucking Turing machines then.

programming shorthand

[nother_nix_hacker]

I feel using programming shorthand leads to increased maintenance

My code was hard to write to it should be hard to read. :)

One line summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Java adds four new syntaxes, Python's for loop, Perl type checking at compile time, something called 'metadata', and C enumerations, all of which impove compile time type checking at the expense of making the source code look and feel like perl.

Shorthand programming

[Shamashmuddamiq]

Yes, I'd agree with that remark about shorthand programming. I thought it was funny when I was teaching classes at UIUC to see stuff like this from the students:

#define FOREVER for(;;)
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
#define ONE 1
#define PUSHORT unsigned short *
#define DONE goto end

The first thing an amateur programmer does when assigned a new project in C/C++ is to go redefine the language and all the types. I scolded them for these kinds of things, knowing that once they were forced to read other people's code often that they would realize how stupid these kinds of things are. Unfortunately, once I started my career in embedded development, I quickly learned how stupid I must have been to think that people left these behaviors behind in college... (all the above examples are taken from "professional" code that I've seen in the last few weeks)

Re:Programming shortcuts

[Angry White Guy]

Makes for great job security!

You wanna fire me? Have fun sorting out my code! It's commented in yiddish, if at all!

Re:FreeBSD Support

[chefbimbo]

It'd be about time Sun ported it to FreeBSD (the ONE thing lacking from it) but as you know, FreeBSD is dying so why bother.

Re:Shorthand programming

[Anonymous Coward]

a while back i did some obfuscation of my code to make it hard to read. i never really shared any of the code so it served no purpose whatsoever. i did things like:

#define begin }
#define end {

but by far my favorite was:

#define ONION UNION
#define RINGS REGS

so I could declare a structure:
struct ONION RINGS o;

for doing VESA interrupts.

Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean /.?

Re:Article didn't mention new concurrency stuff

[bricriu]

AtomicLong? Born in the heart of a nuclear furnace, endowed with the power of the atom, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's AtomicLong!

Sounds like a "super" class to me. ;)

Re:Wow, how intelligent

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

Hell, lets write everything on fucking Turing machines then.

I love the language. It's the lack of libraries that kills you.

Re:Programming shortcuts

[slagdogg]

The problem is that some syntatic sugar doesn't actually increase readability. Consider operator overloading.

Maybe it's just me, but I think operator overloading is closer to syntactic poison than syntactic sugar ...

Re:ooooh baby

[slagdogg]

Typesafe enums. That alone makes me quiver with happiness.

You don't get out much, do you?

When are people going to learn...

[Anonymous Coward]

....that C++ is perfect and using other languages is useless.
C++ does it all, does it faster and although may be harder to learn, allows the programmer to make the choices. I've always beleived that if learning a high leval language like C++ is too complicated for you, you have no business working on anything even remoatly serious. I have always felt like I am being held back with most other languages, including Java, but with C++ I have felt like I can do anything. I have choice over pointers, generics, classes, friend fuctions....I guess I love the fact C++ allows you to break all the rules...which can lead to clever tricks....it's beautiful. Lower leval languages, as well as .asm have always been easier for me to grasp I guess....no hiding things, what you put in is what you get out. Smalltalk is cute though. :)

Re:Article didn't mention new concurrency stuff

[slagdogg]

AtomicLong? Born in the heart of a nuclear furnace, endowed with the power of the atom, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's AtomicLong!

Sounds like a "super" class to me. ;)

Sounds like a porn star's name to me.

The Six-Million-Dollar Sweetener

[SEWilco]

Some of the enhancements to me are purely sugar

I often also enhance myself with sugar.

Re:Looking to Get Back into Java

[doublem]

I consider it to be on par with FrontPage.

Harsh.

Very cruel man.

Re:I think these are all great...

[Doppler00]

They can't make the syntax easy to read. If they did, then it would be called Python.

Re:Wow, how intelligent

[westfirst]

Duh. Turing machines can't solve many things like the halting problem. C can do everything, or at least that's what my C programming friend says when he's making fun of Java.

Re:enumerators

[billnapier]

That's what we've been using but my fingers get tired from typing all that extra crap in...

Yeah, but...

[Burpmaster]

I'd say that "++x" is actually the "best" way because it puts things in verb-noun order, which I'm used to as an English speaker.

In Soviet Russia, x++!

Sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably the most terrifying sig I've ever seen.

Re:Uglification?

[ptomblin]

Damn, me too. That's what I wrote as well.

Re:Shorthand programming

[Anonymous Coward]

or better yet

#define IS_NOT_IS_TOO_IS_NOT_FINE_HAVE_IT_YOUR_WAY !

if (IS_NOT_IS_TOO_IS_NOT_FINE_HAVE_IT_YOUR_WAY (flag & VAL1) || (flag & VAL2)

I pity the software engineer...

[gafter]

who has to implement the new javac.

Uh, ... wait, that would be me.