Java focuses solely on object-oriented programming. Does this make Java code more complex in some cases where C++ can instead take advantage of generic programming?
Bjarne: Well, the Java designers—and probably the Java marketers even more so emphasized OO to the point where it became absurd. When Java first appeared, claiming purity and simplicity, I predicted that if it succeeded Java would grow significantly in size and complexity. It did.
For example, using casts to convert from Object when getting a value out of a container (e.g., (Apple)c.get(i)) is an absurd consequence of not being able to state what type the objects in the container is supposed have. It’s verbose and inefficient. Now Java has generics, so it’s just a bit slow. Other examples of increased language complexity (helping the programmer) are enumerations, reflection, and inner classes.
The simple fact is that complexity will emerge somewhere, if not in the language definition, then in thousands of applications and libraries. Similarly, Java’s obsession with putting every algorithm (operation) into a class leads to absurdities like classes with no data consisting exclusively of static functions. There are reasons why math uses f(x) and f(x,y) rather than x.f( ), x.f(y), and (x,y).f( )—the latter is an attempt to express the idea of a “truly object-oriented method” of two arguments and to avoid the inherent asymmetry of x.f(y).
C++ addresses many of the logical as well as the notational problems with object orientation through a combination of data abstraction and generic programming techniques. A classical example is vector where T can be any type that can be copied—including builtin types, pointers to OO hierarchies, and user-defined types, such as strings and complex numbers. This is all done without adding runtime overheads, placing restrictions on data layouts, or having special rules for standard library components. Another example that does not fit the classical single-dispatch hierarchy model of OO is an operation that requires access to two classes, such as operator*(Matrix,Vector), which is not naturally a “method” of either class.
Source of Information : Oreilly - Masterminds of Programming
Bjarne: Well, the Java designers—and probably the Java marketers even more so emphasized OO to the point where it became absurd. When Java first appeared, claiming purity and simplicity, I predicted that if it succeeded Java would grow significantly in size and complexity. It did.
For example, using casts to convert from Object when getting a value out of a container (e.g., (Apple)c.get(i)) is an absurd consequence of not being able to state what type the objects in the container is supposed have. It’s verbose and inefficient. Now Java has generics, so it’s just a bit slow. Other examples of increased language complexity (helping the programmer) are enumerations, reflection, and inner classes.
The simple fact is that complexity will emerge somewhere, if not in the language definition, then in thousands of applications and libraries. Similarly, Java’s obsession with putting every algorithm (operation) into a class leads to absurdities like classes with no data consisting exclusively of static functions. There are reasons why math uses f(x) and f(x,y) rather than x.f( ), x.f(y), and (x,y).f( )—the latter is an attempt to express the idea of a “truly object-oriented method” of two arguments and to avoid the inherent asymmetry of x.f(y).
C++ addresses many of the logical as well as the notational problems with object orientation through a combination of data abstraction and generic programming techniques. A classical example is vector
|
|
0 comments
Post a Comment