Oppinion on 'least priviledge', 'const correctness', etc.
in [General Programming]
|
Prev: Simple Hack TO Get $1500 To Your PayPal Account.
Next: Const correctness (was Re: Oppinion on 'least priviledge', 'constcorrectness', etc.)
From: Lew on 20 Jul 2010 13:28 Öö Tiib wrote: > Why you cross posted to several groups? Post into every group > individually if you need different opinions. There are lot more > Wrong. You describe multi-posting, one of the cardinal sins of Usenet. Cross-posting is much better. Do not multi-post. Ever. Cross-post only when you must, to the least number of relevant groups. > languages. Each is different. For example java [sic] does not have language > elements dedicated for const correctness at all i [sic] think. However .... Wrong again, sort of. Java has 'final' which is sort of similar to 'const'. -- Lew
From: Öö Tiib on 20 Jul 2010 14:04 On 20 juuli, 20:28, Lew <l...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > Öö Tiib wrote: > > Why you cross posted to several groups? Post into every group > > individually if you need different opinions. There are lot more > > Wrong. You describe multi-posting, one of the cardinal sins of > Usenet. Cross-posting is much better. > > Do not multi-post. Ever. > > Cross-post only when you must, to the least number of relevant groups. OK. Thanks for correcting. I do neither anyway unless replying. comp.lang.c++ and comp.lang.c++.moderated keep me usually entertained enough. > > languages. Each is different. For example java [sic] does not have language > > elements dedicated for const correctness at all i [sic] think. However .... > > Wrong again, sort of. Java has 'final' which is sort of similar to > 'const'. I have not seen much usage of it nor heard much talk about 'final- correctness' in friendly java teams. C devs talk about const a lot more. Perhaps that 'final' sort of misses some useful perks of 'const'.
From: Jonathan Lee on 20 Jul 2010 14:14 On Jul 20, 2:04 pm, Öö Tiib <oot...(a)hot.ee> wrote: > On 20 juuli, 20:28, Lew <l...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > > Wrong again, sort of. Java has 'final' which is sort of similar to > > 'const'. > > I have not seen much usage of it nor heard much talk about 'final- > correctness' in friendly java teams. C devs talk about const a lot > more. Perhaps that 'final' sort of misses some useful perks of > 'const'. I've never heard of an equivalent of "const correctness" in Java, but I also don't use it very much. Though, a quick Google search seems to support the idea that "final" is really nothing like const-correctness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_%28Java%29 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1370042/why-is-const-correctness-specific-to-c http://mannu.livejournal.com/131085.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const-correctness --Jonathan
From: Pete Becker on 20 Jul 2010 14:24 On 2010-07-20 14:04:15 -0400, �� Tiib said: > On 20 juuli, 20:28, Lew <l...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: >> �� Tiib wrote: >>> Why you cross posted to several groups? Post into every group >>> individually if you need different opinions. There are lot more >> >> Wrong. �You describe multi-posting, one of the cardinal sins of >> Usenet. �Cross-posting is much better. >> >> Do not multi-post. �Ever. >> >> Cross-post only when you must, to the least number of relevant groups. > > OK. Thanks for correcting. I do neither anyway unless replying. > comp.lang.c++ and comp.lang.c++.moderated keep me usually entertained > enough. > >>> languages. Each is different. For example java [sic] does not have language >>> elements dedicated for const correctness at all i [sic] think. However... >> >> Wrong again, sort of. �Java has 'final' which is sort of similar to >> 'const'. > > I have not seen much usage of it nor heard much talk about 'final- > correctness' in friendly java teams. C devs talk about const a lot > more. Perhaps that 'final' sort of misses some useful perks of > 'const'. Yup. Most of them, in fact. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
From: Alan Gutierrez on 20 Jul 2010 17:43
Jonathan Lee wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:04 pm, �� Tiib <oot...(a)hot.ee> wrote: >> On 20 juuli, 20:28, Lew <l...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: >>> Wrong again, sort of. Java has 'final' which is sort of similar to >>> 'const'. >> I have not seen much usage of it nor heard much talk about 'final- >> correctness' in friendly java teams. C devs talk about const a lot >> more. Perhaps that 'final' sort of misses some useful perks of >> 'const'. > > I've never heard of an equivalent of "const correctness" in Java, > but I also don't use it very much. Though, a quick Google search > seems to support the idea that "final" is really nothing like > const-correctness: The equivalent in Java to "const-Correctness", culturally, is "Favor Immutability". The same sort of conversation taking place here is one that follows a request to explain the benefits of "Favor Immutability". I'm new here, and I humbly submit the above observation. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy |