4 ms·
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'
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoA "static factory" is just a static method. You know, a function. Nothing over-engineered or enterprisey about using functions to allocate objects.
- nikolay 11y agoWhy state the obvious?
- wtetzner 11y ago> Why state the obvious? So you think using functions is enterprisey and over-engineering things?
- nikolay 11y agoRead 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.
- wtetzner 11y ago> People abusing Java with overengineering and using factories and other enterprisey design patterns for everything made a lot of people leave the Java land! Actually, people left Java land because they couldn't express what they needed to without using complicated design patterns.