Comments on: Why Java Doesn’t Need Properties (It already has them)

By: gusgorman

gusgorman — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:18:19 +0000

@Jeff Robinson

Thats normally what I do.
Sometimes you would really like to pass in a parameter though. Perhaps a boolean was a bad example (an enum value might be a better example)

By: Jeff Robinson

Jeff Robinson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:44:33 +0000

@gusgorman, why wouldn’t you add a second property in C# called FilteredFoos? .FilteredFoos could even do a subquery on .Foos.

IList foos = someObject.Foos;
IList filteredFoos = someObject.FilteredFoos;

It looks cleaner to me. When reading “someObject.getFoos(false)” I have no idea what are the implications of passing either true or false to getFoos. It is clear what I am getting when I call .FilteredFoos.

By: gusgorman

gusgorman — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:18:48 +0000

Ugh – code came out looking bad:

should be

IList foos= someObject.Foos;

and

IList filteredFoos = someObject.getFoos(false);

By: gusgorman

gusgorman — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:16:51 +0000

After 10 years of java programming I’ve spent the last 2 years doing alot of C#, and I have to say I find properties in .NET somewhat cumbersome. Lets say you’ve got a property:

IList<Foo> foos= someObject.Foos;

and you want to override that method to filter the foos. In java you would just add a method:

IList<Foo> filteredFoos = someObject.getFoos(false);

but in C# it gets messy. Do you have one as a property, and one as a method? Yuck.

Properties are just methods with different syntax. There really is no need. Yes, it is very nice and convenient declaring a property in C#, but its also very nice and convenient generating a getter or setter in Eclipse.

By: Zerq

Zerq — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:14:14 +0000

If you refure to have a past then you have no future!
none of these argument make much sense.

If your going to keep insisting on backwards compatabilaty for ever then there can never be any progress..
As for invalidating the books of the past well thats laugthable you cant keep reality constant.. books become out of date all the time..
things change… ITS NOT A BAD THING!

Standards are nice and good but there is the trick… you can add numbers at the end…..
Backwardscompatabilaty nazis are retards… literaly.. they are retarding progress!

This is why Java is going to get it ass handed to it…
Microsoft stole all that was wonderfull about java and made it better… I challenge the java world to do the same…

The clearer and more easy to read the syntax the easier and the more fun programming becomes if out languages dont evlove how can our programming evolve…

I mena where would we be today if we limited our comuinication to grunts and hitting each other on the head with clubs just because introducing more advanced features like words would confuse some people….

at least some people in the java world arent insane…. just look at Scala…

By: sclytrack

sclytrack — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:30:07 +0000

Java should add properties or it will decline in popularity. Just knowing that it can be done simpler in another language is just a nerve wrecking. Java should get rid of its verbosity and allow less typing. The most common design patterns should be incorporated in the language. Design Patterns are invented to compensate for language deficiencies and Java has many.

When some sort of property syntax is added, entire libraries will need to be changed to included them. Is this a problem? Look at the database API. There was no need to rewrite them, yet when java annotations were added it got rewritten anyways. Java Persistence API has annotations everywhere. Hence rewriting all the libraries with a newer property syntax would be no problem at all.

Oracle, just include properties!!!!

By: Elliotte Rusty Harold

Elliotte Rusty Harold — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:20:21 +0000

Phuong, Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Do you recall when the assert keyword was added to Java? and promptly broke every single program on the planet that used JUnit?

By: Phuong Nguyen

Phuong Nguyen — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:37:22 +0000

Are you using your brain seriously?
“At least some of the proposals add keywords to the language, thus breaking existing programs.” How on earth your logical process produce such conclusion? I can imagine the withdrawals of keywords breaking existing programs, but add?

By: Graham Wheeler

Graham Wheeler — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:30:50 +0000

I agree with Non-nude Cheerleader’s post above. It’s a damn shame in this day and age that Java still doesn’t have non-nude cheerleader support, especially when you consider the boys in Redmond baked that capability into C# from the start! (although you have to enable it with a CLR compiler flag)

By: Junior aus Ghana

Junior aus Ghana — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:39:50 +0000

I think properties will make Java simpler. There were properties in Delphi so I was disappointed not to see Java having properties. C# has properties and I don’t think I had to spend more than 2 minutes understanding the syntax. How difficult could adding Properties to Java be? C# has properties and many newbies understand it more easily than try to explain the Javabean naming convention where get and set has to be all lowercase, whole method camelCase. setXxx where the private field is xxx what if you mistakenly typed setXxz or SetXxx. Compiles perfectly but your code doesn’t work as expected.

I want methods to perform actions only and Properties to give me properties of the object.