J
javadesigner
Dear Sun:
My suggestion is to ditch the proposed generics
syntax:
foo<bar>
List<String>
syntax and instead use:
foo/bar
List/String
Note, the current "List<String>" syntax, makes java
server pages, servlets and all code that mixes html,
xml and java be totally incomprehensible (because of
all the additional noise introduced by "<" and ">").
Also, if you code long enough, you suffer from
some form of carpal tunnel/rsi injury. Typing
shift + "<" + shift + ">" in the current generics
syntax is bogus and un-necessary. The current syntax
is also a direct copy of C++ and just as foo::bar() makes
no sense in java [foo.bar() is better and so is foo/bar].
JDK betas CAN be changed. There is no reason to use
"..<..>" and many reasons _not_ to.
"List/String" is way easier to type, to read and
does not conflict with html nor xml syntax.
Note, just as "<" and ">" in the current syntax have
no conflict with mathematical and shift operators, neither
will "/" have a conflict with division (since template
declaration syntax cannot appear in a expression).
I hope someone has the courage to examine this
proposal honestly and do the right thing.
Best regards,
--j
My suggestion is to ditch the proposed generics
syntax:
foo<bar>
List<String>
syntax and instead use:
foo/bar
List/String
Note, the current "List<String>" syntax, makes java
server pages, servlets and all code that mixes html,
xml and java be totally incomprehensible (because of
all the additional noise introduced by "<" and ">").
Also, if you code long enough, you suffer from
some form of carpal tunnel/rsi injury. Typing
shift + "<" + shift + ">" in the current generics
syntax is bogus and un-necessary. The current syntax
is also a direct copy of C++ and just as foo::bar() makes
no sense in java [foo.bar() is better and so is foo/bar].
JDK betas CAN be changed. There is no reason to use
"..<..>" and many reasons _not_ to.
"List/String" is way easier to type, to read and
does not conflict with html nor xml syntax.
Note, just as "<" and ">" in the current syntax have
no conflict with mathematical and shift operators, neither
will "/" have a conflict with division (since template
declaration syntax cannot appear in a expression).
I hope someone has the courage to examine this
proposal honestly and do the right thing.
Best regards,
--j