7 ms·

I'm a bit out of the loop on new Java features so I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_hi

by nabogh 3y ago

I'm a bit out of the loop on new Java features so I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history And string templates looked exciting to me. But after skimming https://openjdk.org/jeps/430 https://openjdk.org/jeps/430 it sounds like they want to avoid backticks for "safety"? Like we can already use the plus operator to append strings why would it be any less safe to give us an ergonomic way to do that? Oh well, Java isn't exactly known for being ergonomic.

60secs 3y ago
Backticks are used as literals in a lot of contexts, especially DBs. Overloading that behavior by default would likely blow up a lot of code and certainly violate the principle of least surprise.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  By DBs, you mean MySQL :/ No one else has such an oddity
  - coldtea 3y ago
    SQLite also features backticks as literals (though they're not the main option). And I fail to see how it's much of an oddity, as other RDBs use all kinds of BS for literals. SQL Server for example uses [square brackets]. If anything backticks have some history of being used for string literals in some languages (e.g. Javascript and Go), whereas in many others they are used for command substitution (which is not far removed from what a string literal combined with a processor does in Java).
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      I consider them to be odd when ANSI SQL has perfectly workable identifier quoting. Different for the purpose of being different.
  - scrame 3y ago
    yes and mysql has an enormous install base.
lolinder 3y ago
The safety isn't in avoiding backticks, that's just syntax. The safety comes from requiring you to specify which template processor you're using for the template string, so it's just as easy to use the right processor (eventually, SQL."") as it is to use the wrong one (STR.""). Using STR."" instead of STR.`` is just an aesthetic choice, and one that I think makes sense for Java.

by nabogh 3y ago

60secs 3y ago

Backticks are used as literals in a lot of contexts, especially DBs. Overloading that behavior by default would likely blow up a lot of code and certainly violate the principle of least surprise.

paulddraper 3y ago
By DBs, you mean MySQL :/ No one else has such an oddity
- coldtea 3y ago
  SQLite also features backticks as literals (though they're not the main option). And I fail to see how it's much of an oddity, as other RDBs use all kinds of BS for literals. SQL Server for example uses [square brackets]. If anything backticks have some history of being used for string literals in some languages (e.g. Javascript and Go), whereas in many others they are used for command substitution (which is not far removed from what a string literal combined with a processor does in Java).
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    I consider them to be odd when ANSI SQL has perfectly workable identifier quoting. Different for the purpose of being different.
- scrame 3y ago
  yes and mysql has an enormous install base.

lolinder 3y ago

The safety isn't in avoiding backticks, that's just syntax. The safety comes from requiring you to specify which template processor you're using for the template string, so it's just as easy to use the right processor (eventually, SQL."") as it is to use the wrong one (STR.""). Using STR."" instead of STR.`` is just an aesthetic choice, and one that I think makes sense for Java.