Lightweight interfaces instead of function types

[Olivier Allouch]

+1000

Designing an API is like desigining an innovative UI, you have to be in 
the user's mind.
You can say "every user is different" or "a coder can learn and adapt", 
but they (we) usually don't.
We learn by using.

Btw, ditching expressions is an excellent idea. It will avoid "where the 
hell is the return" reflexes.

Le 21/02/2010 12:58, Stephen Colebourne a écrit :
>>>        Callable<String>[] array = new Callable[10];
>>> This works, and is safe /in practice/ (rather than type-system safe).
>>>        
> On 21 February 2010 06:46, Alex Buckley<Alex.Buckley at sun.com>  wrote:
>    
>> No, it isn't safe in practice. It causes heap pollution which can cause
>> programs to crash. It is a hack allowed because migration compatibility
>> was so very, very important. (It is not particularly helpful of IDE
>> vendors to hide the unchecked warning by default.) Reified generics
>> don't help either; they just make the topic 5x more complicated.
>>      
> On 21 February 2010 07:37, Neal Gafter<neal at gafter.com>  wrote:
>    
>> It is because people like you have been teaching this "safe in practice"
>> attitude that people write code like that... code that would break hard if
>> generics were ever reified.  The existence of so much code that would break
>> is a principal obstacle to actually reifying generics.
>>      
> The "safe in practice" point is that for the vast majority of
> developers, for the vast majority of time, this will never be an
> issue. Arrays are relatively rarely assigned to another array, and
> arrays are relatively rarely used in method signatures
>
> Its also important to say that most developers don't understand the
> detailed reason why it has to produce a warning, they just know that
> lots of things in generics suck. I expect the sequence of events to be
> something like:
>
> Developer writes:
>     Callable<String>[] = new Callable<String>[1];
> Gets compile error.
> Curses sucky generics.
> Thinks "how can I work around generics".
> Thinks "this would work without generics".
> Changes code:
>     Callable<String>[] = new Callable[1];
> Gets warning.
> Curses sucky generics.
> Clicks IDE "get rid of warnings" button.
> Carries on with what they were actually trying to do.
>
> The developer is just interested in getting their task done, not
> keeping the compiler happy. Taken from that perspective, its not
> unreasonable to wonder if the error and warning actually accomplished
> anything?
>
> I'd also note that varargs use arrays, and with the Coin fix we will
> see more generified arrays, not less.
>
> More broadly, it has been noted by more than one person that
> ClassCastExceptions from ungenerified objects/collections or
> ArrayStoreExceptions have always been a rarity in real code by
> comparison to NullPointerExceptions (ie. why aren't we tackling
> NPEs???).
>
> I'm not trying to start a debate on this - its partly philosophical.
> But I do feel its very important to make the point that, IMO, most
> developers don't worry about these things to the extent that language
> designers do. Writing Callable<String>[] array = new Callable[10]; has
> become just a necessary part of using Java today.
>
> Stephen
>
>