3 ms·

These comments by Guy Steele http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04044.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-htm

by leoc 17y ago

These comments by Guy Steele http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04044.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m... http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04030.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m... on the LL-1 list seem to shed light on why Java has a hardwired "new".

weavejester 17y ago
Aha, interesting. So they were worried about having a specific operator for heap allocation. It doesn't sound like a particularly clever design decision, because even very early on Java had static "newInstance" methods which rather seem to defeat the point. But I can see the reasoning behind it now, even if that reasoning wasn't very well thought through.