Re: the Java Lang will support Properties in Futuere?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:08:00 -0800, mttc <mtczx232@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+Please give me one reason that Proprties Java style is better! (clear
or quickly)

Because it's what everyone has been using. There are huge volumes of code that depend on the current property idiom and it pretty much works fine.

Personally, I like language-supported properties. But as long as people follow standard conventions, you can get nearly all the benefit of baked-in properties using regular methods. One of the biggest advantages of properties as a language feature is the ability to have the language semantically express that. But as long as one is careful about following the right conventions, those semantics can be included without language support.

In a new language, I think properties make a lot of sense. But they weren't in Java from the outset, nor were they added early enough to make a difference. Language additions at this point need to be _big_ win for the effort, and it's not clear to me that properties meet that criteria.

So my main Claim. the Java guys behave like Academy that disconnected
from the workers. and this cause that Java is will not growing like we
want. microsoft is behave like A dog. the dog is run ahead, but
looking behind where his owner go. this is stupid behave But is

While you'll no doubt find plenty of people who support this statement, I have to say that at least in the realm of language design this is in an inaccurate and prejudicial characterization of Microsoft. Yes, C# borrowed a great deal from both Java and Delphi (the latter being no surprise, given that the same designer was involved in that and C#). But all versions of C# have included good innovations as well, and C# 4.0 promises to carry on that tradition.

In any case, it's a fallacy to think that any significant amount of technology is designed in a vacuum without reference to predecessors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with referencing prior technology and improving upon it or simply borrowing useful features when appropriate.

You got some surprisingly vehement disagreements from others on this topic, though I suspect that has something to do with the relatively vehement way you expressed your opinion from the outset. I find it amusing that anyone could get so worked up over a feature like this, and especially that someone could claim so strongly that there's not any point in supporting properties as a language feature.

But I certainly would agree that they aren't a critical feature, and I'm hard-pressed to think of something you could do with a language-supported property that you couldn't do with a pair of methods that simply follows a standard naming convention.