| Re: OOP versus Procedural/Functional [message #177639 is a reply to message #177634] |
Wed, 11 April 2012 21:43   |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <jm4pao$lqh$1(at)dont-email(dot)me>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 1:18 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <jm4dnm$cj7$1(at)dont-email(dot)me>,
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/11/2012 10:25 AM, Goran wrote:
>>>> On 11.4.2012 13:16, crankypuss wrote:
>>>> > I remember writing a Java application and trying to derive an actually
>>>> > useful string class from the garbage they had declared "final" and
>>> that
>>>> > was it for me and Java.
>>>>
>>>> Just for curiosity, which method you tried to override? Somehow i smell
>>>> a good reason for "final" :)
>>>
>>> Actually, I agree with Cranky on this one. I, too, have wanted to
>>> override the java String class and been frustrated by its 'final'
>>> attribute. I don't see why it couldn't have been created as non-final
>>> - and it would have been a lot more usable.
>>
>> Somehow this reminds me of one of the Pascal pig's ears: that two
>> strings of different lengths were different types.
>>
> LOL. Yes, Pascal takes strict typing (more than) a bit too far. And
> for that very reason I think it's a good training language - but a
> crappy development language.
Sure - as it was intended to be.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]