new stuff in 1.8

Discussion in 'Java' started by Roedy Green, Apr 28, 2014.

  1. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    There are some little surprises in 1.8. Regex checking at compile
    time, fake enums, lightweight, that can be retrofitted to magic int
    code. I was asking for those back in the Java 1.0 days. Now they come
    out is the wash as a side effect of annotations. Units of measure
    consistency (without unit conversion).

    A nullness checker incompatible with Intellij/FindBug's.

    Checks that you remembered to initialise everything.

    making sure you don't use == unless you used intern.

    Checking GUI thread use.
    Roedy Green, Apr 28, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roedy Green

    Joerg Meier Guest

    I could not find anything about that. Care to elaborate ?

    Liebe Gruesse,
    Joerg Meier, Apr 28, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    These are not quite as built-in as I thought. You have to install
    them with a rather grim process.

    for links to the bits you will need to try them out.

    They are called Checker-Framework from the University of Washington.

    It is just astounding what they are doing with annotations at compile

    Before Java, I mainly coded in Forth and Abundance (a Forth
    extension). There you can use the same coding language for compile
    time as run time.

    Java seemed so hobbled by its complete lack of compile time
    computation. You could not even embed a compile date or use alternate
    libraries. Java seems to be evolving nicely.
    Roedy Green, May 1, 2014
  4. Roedy Green

    Sarah Connor Guest

    And Lisp did it even earlier and much better.
    Sarah Connor, May 1, 2014
  5. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    Even Java drives me crazy counting () and {} nesting depths. Can you
    imagine the effect of Lisp?

    In Forth, everything is the same precedence. It takes some getting
    used to, but eventually is becomes easier to read than precedence
    languages. There are no subtle rules to trip you up.

    Java trips me up frequently with + meaning either addition or
    concatenation depending on the phases of the moon. They really should
    have sprung for a separate concatenation operator, or at least have
    IDEs display the + in a different colour or font depending on which it

    I also choke every time see a cast. Just what in the chain is it
    Roedy Green, May 1, 2014
  6. Roedy Green

    Simon Lewis Guest

    Seriously, if you are "counting" brackets there is something very very
    broken in your approach and knowledge of editors and IDEs.

    WHAT? a separate concatenation operator? You may as well suggest they
    dump java and go back to C.
    Some might.
    the type of the variable.... no other.
    Simon Lewis, May 1, 2014
  7. Roedy Green

    Joerg Meier Guest

    I'm confused as to what this has to do with Java 1.8. As far as I can tell,
    that's a third party library completely unrelated to Oracle or Java 1.8.

    Liebe Gruesse,
    Joerg Meier, May 1, 2014
  8. Roedy Green

    Jeff Higgins Guest

    The Checker Framework project may be found here:
    The Checker Framework is a Java annotation processor capable of
    processing the new to Java 1.8 type annotations.

    It is not "new stuff 'in' Java 1.8".
    Jeff Higgins, May 1, 2014
  9. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    Roedy Green, May 1, 2014
  10. In Java, there's at least that distinction between braced structural blocks
    and parentheses in expressions. And if expressional parentheses do not
    properly pair up inside a structural block, then I can be pretty damn sure
    that the compiler will tell me near to the spot and not just at the end
    of the source file.

    Structural blocks *should* be consistent with indentation, and thus not
    necessary to count. (if not consistent, then who's to blame?)

    Lisps parentheses are indeed horror.
    I cannot follow *that* logic. Java, while refusing operator overloading
    to the programmer, is burdened with one instance of exactly the kind of
    overloading that they didn't want programmers to be able to do. Otoh.,
    where "+" would really make sense (namely for BigInteger and BigDecimal)
    it cannot be used.

    How would having e.g. the "#" character for String concatenation
    brought anything nearer to C (or C++) ?

    Not that I had any false hopes of something changing here, of course.
    I think the main ones (eclipse and netbeans) don't, but it's been a while
    since I last used netbeans, so I don't know if anything changed since back
    Are you serious about your interpretation of the question?

    I share Roedy's point, when I have to write or read stuff like
    ok, it's not all that frequent and somewhat exaggerated, but what I come
    across in real code is already more than it would be in an ideal world.
    Andreas Leitgeb, May 5, 2014
  11. Roedy Green

    Sarah Connor Guest

    To someone who isn't using the appropriate tools (in particular,
    paredit), it might seem that way, I suppose.
    Sarah Connor, May 5, 2014
  12. Probably the best tool in the sad context of having to produce lisp
    (or for slightly less-OT: clojure) code would be a source-level
    translator from any decent language to lisp/clojure. (And "cat"
    surely doesn't qualify. ;)

    PS: googled for paredit and found something related to emacs, but
    the layout of those samples still qualifies as "horror" to me.
    What's worse, I once had a colleague who used that lisp style
    for C++ }}}}}}}}}
    Andreas Leitgeb, May 5, 2014
  13. Roedy Green

    Simon Lewis Guest

    Like a lot of other languages.

    This is basic stuff. IDEs cope with them well. Good editors like Emacs
    cope with them well. Complaining here is the equivalent of saying "I
    cant google" IMO.

    or you keep an eye on things as you type/edit. Amazing idea I
    know. There's this wonderful rocket science thing called "syntax hiliting".
    Not really. With a good editor. Like Emacs.
    Simon Lewis, May 5, 2014
  14. Roedy Green

    Simon Lewis Guest

    Or doesn't understand lisp.

    It's no worse than anything else in other languages.
    Simon Lewis, May 5, 2014
  15. Ok, I admit I'd even prefer lisp to certain other
    computer languages, like e.g. Malbolge. ;-)

    And now for something completely different...

    back to Java.
    Andreas Leitgeb, May 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.