«

I was just doing a bit of coding for Java 1.5 and using generics; I am
rewriting an application I developed using the new features. I said it
before they implemented generics that they needed typedef and now that we
have generics I say again ... we need typedef ...

Which is really worse having to cast a return value on occasion or defining
HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();

I try to use descriptive class names so they are longer than this.

We should be able to define an alias to Generic types.
For example:
typedef HashMap<Key,Class> MyHashMap;

Just a little frustrated,
Steve

dont be lazy. It is bad enough they added generics and autoboxing to Java.
It's beauty was in its simplicity.


"Steve Green" <> wrote in message
news:5Un0e.34298$FB6.12790@trndny09...
> I was just doing a bit of coding for Java 1.5 and using generics; I am
> rewriting an application I developed using the new features. I said it
> before they implemented generics that they needed typedef and now that we
> have generics I say again ... we need typedef ...
>
> Which is really worse having to cast a return value on occasion or
defining
> HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();
>
> I try to use descriptive class names so they are longer than this.
>
> We should be able to define an alias to Generic types.
> For example:
> typedef HashMap<Key,Class> MyHashMap;
>
> Just a little frustrated,
> Steve
>
>

AJ M. wrote:
> dont be lazy. It is bad enough they added generics and autoboxing to Java.
> It's beauty was in its simplicity.

I don't believe the issue is one of "laziness." It's one of clarity and
abstraction.

Of course, language changes are inherently Evil. What alternatives to
typedef are available already? I would appreciate suggestions from this
community. Why was typedef not brought into the language along with
generics?


> "Steve Green" <> wrote in message
> news:5Un0e.34298$FB6.12790@trndny09...
>
>>I was just doing a bit of coding for Java 1.5 and using generics; I am
>>rewriting an application I developed using the new features. I said it
>>before they implemented generics that they needed typedef and now that we
>>have generics I say again ... we need typedef ...
>>
>>Which is really worse having to cast a return value on occasion or
>
> defining
>
>>HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();
>>
>>I try to use descriptive class names so they are longer than this.
>>
>>We should be able to define an alias to Generic types.
>>For example:
>>typedef HashMap<Key,Class> MyHashMap;
>>
>>Just a little frustrated,
>>Steve
>>
>>
>
>
>

I agree.

By the same logic as the original thread, one could say that any high level
language is also a matter of "laziness" when compared to assembly language.
No one certainly needs a language like C++ or Java or C# when it all gets
compiled/interpreted to machine code in the end.

I come from .NET and have just begun learning Java. Although some of the
constructs are different, .NET has come real conveniences that are working
their way into the Java world, and vis versa.

In the end, the evolution of software and languages make for a better
development environment where we are all more productive.

"Jeff Schwab" <> wrote in message
news:veSdnTpEWI3Dq9_fRVn-...
> AJ M. wrote:
> > dont be lazy. It is bad enough they added generics and autoboxing to
Java.
> > It's beauty was in its simplicity.
>
> I don't believe the issue is one of "laziness." It's one of clarity and
> abstraction.
>
> Of course, language changes are inherently Evil. What alternatives to
> typedef are available already? I would appreciate suggestions from this
> community. Why was typedef not brought into the language along with
> generics?
>
>
> > "Steve Green" <> wrote in message
> > news:5Un0e.34298$FB6.12790@trndny09...
> >
> >>I was just doing a bit of coding for Java 1.5 and using generics; I am
> >>rewriting an application I developed using the new features. I said it
> >>before they implemented generics that they needed typedef and now that
we
> >>have generics I say again ... we need typedef ...
> >>
> >>Which is really worse having to cast a return value on occasion or
> >
> > defining
> >
> >>HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();
> >>
> >>I try to use descriptive class names so they are longer than this.
> >>
> >>We should be able to define an alias to Generic types.
> >>For example:
> >>typedef HashMap<Key,Class> MyHashMap;
> >>
> >>Just a little frustrated,
> >>Steve
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

AJ M. wrote:
>
> It's beauty was in its simplicity.
>
I totally agree.

AJ M. wrote:
> It's beauty was in its simplicity.

Yes, it was. And then they decided to add some pet syntax, because
<voice style="parody" type="old lady">
"it is so much nicer"
</voice>

All this has nothing to do with evolution of the state of the art. Java
has become part of the usual language "enhancement" cycle. A language is
"enhanced" up to the point were someone comes and says enough is enough
and creates something simpler. Then this new simpler language starts
being "enhanced" over time up to the point were it is at least as
complex as the predecessor. At that point yet another new simple
language comes up ...



/Thomas

--
The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/...g/java/gui/faq

"Steve Green" <> writes:

> HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();

That is nothing. Using the wildcard variants for generics is the real
pain, and typedef won't help there.

"Steve Green" <> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:5Un0e.34298$FB6.12790@trndny09...
>I was just doing a bit of coding for Java 1.5 and using generics; I am
>rewriting an application I developed using the new features. I said it
>before they implemented generics that they needed typedef and now that we
>have generics I say again ... we need typedef ...
>
> Which is really worse having to cast a return value on occasion or
> defining
> HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();
>
> I try to use descriptive class names so they are longer than this.
>
> We should be able to define an alias to Generic types.
> For example:
> typedef HashMap<Key,Class> MyHashMap;
>
> Just a little frustrated,
> Steve

Instead of using typedef, just use inheritence :

public class MyHashMap extends HashMap<Key,Class>
{
}

... and that's it.

Vincent

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <>
???????:...
> "Steve Green" <> writes:
>
>> HashMap<Key,Class> var = new HashMap<Key,Class>();
>
> That is nothing. Using the wildcard variants for generics is the real
> pain, and typedef won't help there.

An example, please ?

AJ M. <> wrote or quoted:

> dont be lazy. It is bad enough they added generics and autoboxing to Java.
> It's beauty was in its simplicity.

Java was never simple.

In that respect it resembles English - full of
difficult-to-learn irregularities, and exceptions.

The designers chose to borrow from C++ rather than Smalltalk in that area.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.