5 ms·

You fail to see that type inference is optional. So yes for readability's sake, in your first example I wouldn't omit the "int", but in simpler cases you CAN om

by haffla 11y ago

You fail to see that type inference is optional. So yes for readability's sake, in your first example I wouldn't omit the "int", but in simpler cases you CAN omit if you want. And that's just nice, end of story.

nikolay 11y ago
Optional, alright, but promoting bad practices. If people like dumb-down languages, there are plenty of them already!
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  What are the bad practices being promoted by this? How does it qualify as dumbed down? Simply ranting about things that, charitably, you don't seem to understand, does not make the rants valid.
  - nikolay 11y ago
    The best practice is that the type of the variable is of the interface, not the implementation except in some special cases.
    - wtetzner 11y ago
      So stop using constructors and start using static factory methods. The return type of a static factory method can be the interface type.
      - nikolay 11y ago
        Yeah, let's UML the hell out of everything to be enterprisey and be Martin Fowler-approved! This is what turned off a lot of people before!
        wtetzner 11y ago
        Sorry, did "static factory" sound scary? How about "use a function to create your objects" instead? So instead of doing this: Foo foo = new Foo("bar"); You can do this: Foo foo = Foo.of("bar");
        nikolay 11y ago
        Yeah, but how about the implementation?
    - msbarnett 11y ago
      This is complete nonsense if you're using a static constructor and not a factory. There's zero point to doing this for a local, statically constructed type. It's not a best practice. If you were using a factory, var would infer the factory signature's type, which would normally be the interface.
      - nikolay 11y ago
        No, it's not a complete nonsense, no. People abusing Java with overengineering and using factories and other enterprisey design patterns for everything made a lot of people leave the Java land!
        wtetzner 11y ago
        A "static factory" is just a static method. You know, a function. Nothing over-engineered or enterprisey about using functions to allocate objects.
        nikolay 11y ago
        Why state the obvious?
        wtetzner 11y ago
        > Why state the obvious? So you think using functions is enterprisey and over-engineering things?
        nikolay 11y ago
        Read my other reply to you on the subject! The API might be a small syntactic change, but the concepts and the implementation behind those for noobs are not. They learn OOP and constructors and then you tell them - they suck, use factories via static methods.
        11y ago
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    As the sibling comment indicates, and I wish to amplify with precision, if you are using the static constructor reference to initialize the local, declaring the local reference to be of a super type is cargo cult nonsense, not a best practice. The concrete type is already locally known, nothing is gained via the abstraction.

by haffla 11y ago

nikolay 11y ago

Optional, alright, but promoting bad practices. If people like dumb-down languages, there are plenty of them already!

oldmanjay 11y ago
What are the bad practices being promoted by this? How does it qualify as dumbed down? Simply ranting about things that, charitably, you don't seem to understand, does not make the rants valid.
- nikolay 11y ago
  The best practice is that the type of the variable is of the interface, not the implementation except in some special cases.
  - wtetzner 11y ago
    So stop using constructors and start using static factory methods. The return type of a static factory method can be the interface type.
    - nikolay 11y ago
      Yeah, let's UML the hell out of everything to be enterprisey and be Martin Fowler-approved! This is what turned off a lot of people before!
      - wtetzner 11y ago
        Sorry, did "static factory" sound scary? How about "use a function to create your objects" instead? So instead of doing this: Foo foo = new Foo("bar"); You can do this: Foo foo = Foo.of("bar");
        nikolay 11y ago
        Yeah, but how about the implementation?
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    This is complete nonsense if you're using a static constructor and not a factory. There's zero point to doing this for a local, statically constructed type. It's not a best practice. If you were using a factory, var would infer the factory signature's type, which would normally be the interface.
    - nikolay 11y ago
      No, it's not a complete nonsense, no. People abusing Java with overengineering and using factories and other enterprisey design patterns for everything made a lot of people leave the Java land!
      - wtetzner 11y ago
        A "static factory" is just a static method. You know, a function. Nothing over-engineered or enterprisey about using functions to allocate objects.
        nikolay 11y ago
        Why state the obvious?
        wtetzner 11y ago
        > Why state the obvious? So you think using functions is enterprisey and over-engineering things?
        nikolay 11y ago
        Read my other reply to you on the subject! The API might be a small syntactic change, but the concepts and the implementation behind those for noobs are not. They learn OOP and constructors and then you tell them - they suck, use factories via static methods.
        11y ago
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  As the sibling comment indicates, and I wish to amplify with precision, if you are using the static constructor reference to initialize the local, declaring the local reference to be of a super type is cargo cult nonsense, not a best practice. The concrete type is already locally known, nothing is gained via the abstraction.