Sun's crappy generic implementation

[swpalmer]

Never say you will never be bitten by Java 5 code!
…
OK, that’s not generics only but also autoboxing! This program fails with IndexOutOfBoundsException because it does not translate list2.remove(7) as list2.remove(new Integer(7)), just as it would do for list2.add(7).

It works EXACTLY as I would expect. LinkedList has a remove(int) method and that is what is and should be called. The only people that would be bitten are those that don’t read the docs or don’t use an IDE that would show them exactly what method they are calling.

Also, this one is cool:

Integer x = 2;
Integer y = 2;
Integer a = 200;
Integer b = 200;
// true
System.out.println("x == y : " + ( x == y ));
// false
System.out.println("a == b : " + ( a == b ));

Again it works as expected. == compares object references so naturally there isn’t really any reason to expect the comparison above to evaluate to true. Anyone that programs in Java knows enough to use the Object.equals(Object) method instead.
Those knowing a bit more will recall that Integer objects are immutable and so the optimization of returning the same instance for a few common values (in this case small numbers like ‘2’) are a valid optimization that is present in the current implementation.

Or generic presumably simplifying the code and making it safer. I like this definition:

public static <T extends Object & Comparable<? super T>> T min(Collection<? extends T> coll)

Explanation: Including “extends Object” is an ugly trick that causes the compiler to erase the method to
“Object min(Collection coll)” instead of “Comparable min(Collection coll)”. This would make
the erased method compatible to J2SDK 1.4…

Yes, that indeed looks scary.

[quote]Yes, new Java version is a bastard one and not all marketing hype Sun is employing to say cleaner, safer Java hides the truth: the baby is ugly!
[/quote]
The baby is more complicated than it was before. Try adding features without becoming more complicated. Let me know when you’ve figured it out.

If generics confuse you, avoid them. You can use C++ without templates too. I’m not saying that things couldn’t be better. I’m just saying that the situation is far from the dire state of affairs that this thread seems to indicate.

[blahblahblahh]

The fact that somebody else could have done something better is always going to be true. If you are worried or frustrated about that you will always be frustrated. Take what they have given you (for free) and use it to your advantage.

Sure, I was just explaining my comment that they are IMHO people I don’t trust with making decisions about what is good for java-the-language and what is acceptable implementation for new feautres and whether those features should go in at all, etc.

If you can do better join the project or shut up.

Shrug. I donate stuff to a lot of open source projects, and I spend a lot of time trying to explain to them the stupid mistakes they make (like when some projects are simply offensive to people trying to help, or when Mozilla’s BZ has an impenetrable submission form FOR NO REASON). But I still get to be disappointed when intelligent people waste time doing things badly that they could have done well and got more out of that way :).

[phazer]

IBM has an interesting article about limitations of the generic type implementation:

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp01255.html

It’s not pretty, but it works (most of the time)

[zingbat]

It makes C++ generics look pritier than Java ones and thats almost an insult.

[blahblahblahh]

[quote]Most software is shit. Most of the software I write is shit. Mostly everyone else’s software is shit. The OS people
[/quote]
But OS X is gorgeous (as I’ve been discovering recently) and the large-screen iBook is so light it makes me weep (still lugging a Dell when not at work…).

Pity Alt-tab is broken, but…

[jbanes]

[quote]But OS X is gorgeous (as I’ve been discovering recently) and the large-screen iBook is so light it makes me weep (still lugging a Dell when not at work…).
[/quote]
Amen.

[quote]Pity Alt-tab is broken, but…
[/quote]
??? Apple+Tab works fine for me. ???

[blahblahblahh]

Amen.

??? Apple+Tab works fine for me. ???

Alt-tab in decent OS’s “switch between all open windows”

apple-tab in OS X “switch between all APPLICATIONS”

If you have 20 MS Word docs open, and 20 webpages open, you have precisely TWO (argh!) apple-tab entries. Under all other OS’s, you get 40.

Ironic, seeing as the primary usefulness of alt-tab is that you switch between windows within the current app without having to move the mouse or type too much.

If you know of a patch, I have a couple of OS X colleagues who’d love to have it too (I asked around, but none seemed to know of a way to fix this).

[jbanes]

[quote]Alt-tab in decent OS’s “switch between all open windows”
[/quote]
coughincrappyoses,thatiscough

[quote]apple-tab in OS X “switch between all APPLICATIONS”
[/quote]
Right.

[quote]If you have 20 MS Word docs open, and 20 webpages open, you have precisely TWO (argh!) apple-tab entries. Under all other OS’s, you get 40.
[/quote]
That’s because other OSes suck. Under Macs, you Apple+Tab to the Application you want, then you Apple+` (back tick) to the window you want. So instead of a worst case of O(n-1), you have a worst case of O((applications-1) + (windowsPerApp-1)). In most situations, it’s a HUGE improvement! BTW, just add the shift key if you accidentally pass an app or window.

BTW, another cool Mac trick is an accessibility thing that works great for developers. Need to get a zoomed view on that graphic? Just hit Option-Apple-* to turn on the zoom mode, then hit Option-Apple-[+/-] to zoom in and out on the mouse cursor! Great for eye strain, too!

Complete key list is here:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75459

[swpalmer]

Yep, I prefer the Apple way of separating switching between apps (Command-Tab) and switching between windows within an app (Command-`). It works great.

And Exposé isn’t that bad either - I bind the F9 action (show me where all the windows are) to my middle mouse button, so I don’t have to move to the keyboard when I’m mousing.

Are we sufficiently off-topic now?

[blahblahblahh]

coughincrappyoses,thatiscough

You spotted my troll ;D

That’s because other OSes suck. Under Macs, you Apple+Tab to the Application you want, then you Apple+` (back tick) to the window you want. So instead of a worst case of O(n-1), you have a worst case of O((applications-1) + (windowsPerApp-1)). In most situations, it’s a HUGE improvement!

I’m not convinced that approach is superior, although (now that the unobvious shortcut has been magically revealed to me) I agree it’s no worse; if it supported all variants, then it definitely would be superior.

I have in mind the frequent situation where you are cycling between two windows in one app and one in a second app; alt-tab lets you not have to stop and think which app each is in.

It;s like winXP’s crap “collapse all apps into one task button”: most of the time, the normal sane user doesn’t give a monkey’s which application they’re using (nb: something known for decades which mainstream OS’s still haven’t quite realised: people work with documents not applications). I have often seen people do “the wrong thing” (hit kb shortcuts etc) for a document because they were thinking about what they were typing rather than about which application the current document was in.

Thanks for enlightening me; hopefully I’ll find the dual tabbing system works for me and doesn’t prove confusing.

Need to get a zoomed view on that graphic? Just hit Option-Apple-* to turn on the zoom mode, then hit Option-Apple-[+/-] to zoom in and out on the mouse cursor!

Thanks for all that, too. For all it’s much-vaunted user-friendliness, OS X is surprisingly nasty to new users…

[swpalmer]

[quote]For all it’s much-vaunted user-friendliness, OS X is surprisingly nasty to new users…
[/quote]
When I first got my powerbook I was also frustrated that all these shortcuts were hidden and I had to search high and low to find out about them (http://macosxhints.com/ proved to be a good place to visit for the first few months of Mac ownership).

I think the reasoning though is that it is specifically NOT nasty to new users. The typical Mac user is someone that simply doesn’t want to know all that stuff. At least not at first - it can be overwhelming. Let them get comfortable with the simple UI concepts and then they can gradually discover shortcut keys and such.

As a power-user you feel like your hands are tied when you aren’t aware of the useful tips and tricks that you knew on Windows. So a Mac seems nasty only to the advanced users that might know enough to think that they are missing something. But Macs have addressed the needs of the power users too. A unix shell after all is not something the typical user would ever want to deal with (and a command line was not present at all on Macs until OS X).

[Virum]

Now if I could just manage to dig up the 1,500 + dollars for a PowerMac capable of fast video editing/compositing, I’d be set.

I like macs a lot, but the price is so unfriendly to poor people like me who are saving for all their other toys.

[swpalmer]

[quote]Now if I could just manage to dig up the 1,500 + dollars for a PowerMac capable of fast video editing/compositing, I’d be set.
[/quote]
If you are at all serious about fast video editing and compositing then you need to spend the money, it’s that simple.

I have been working in the professional video industry for about 10 years now, writing code and APIs for hardware that gets used by everyone from major film studios to people doing wedding videos in their basement. The equipment to do that stuff properly is not cheap.

In fact something like Final Cut Pro or Express (HD) on a decent Mac is pretty darn good for the price. Similar systems I’ve worked with for Windows are much more expensive, with custom hardware for video capture and playback in professional formats, with realtime hardware effects, integration with professional compositing systems and all the fancy bells and whistles. With that stuff, the computer is the cheapest part. The Mac solution is very competitive.

It also has abosolutely nothing to do with Sun’s crappy generic implementation. ;D

[Virum]

If you are at all serious about fast video editing and compositing then you need to spend the money, it’s that simple.

Yeah, but I already have a fairly good PC, and I can upgrade it for less than buying a new Mac. I want a mac, I just can’t afford it.

Me and my friends are going to make a very hi-quality indie film this summer, so I’m saving all my money for a prosumer video camera. After buying that, I won’t have any money left over for for a Mac system.

[quote]I have been working in the professional video industry for about 10 years now, writing code and APIs for hardware that gets used by everyone from major film studios to people doing wedding videos in their basement. The equipment to do that stuff properly is not cheap.
[/quote]
Tell me about it.

[quote]In fact something like Final Cut Pro or Express (HD) on a decent Mac is pretty darn good for the price. Similar systems I’ve worked with for Windows are much more expensive, with custom hardware for video capture and playback in professional formats, with realtime hardware effects, integration with professional compositing systems and all the fancy bells and whistles. With that stuff, the computer is the cheapest part. The Mac solution is very competitive.
[/quote]
I’d love to, but like I said, after buying the camera I won’t have money for the awesome mac system

[quote]It also has abosolutely nothing to do with Sun’s crappy generic implementation. ;D
[/quote]
Nope. ;D

[swpalmer]

AH, cool. So what will you be using on your PC to edit the video?

The products I’ve worked with in the past are those of DPS (now part of Leitch), makers of dpsReality and Velocity editing software, as well as Eyeon Software’s Digital Fusion (nice compositor)

If you are on a budget I know that Avid was giving away a lite, DV-only version of it’s editor.

[Virum]

[quote]AH, cool. So what will you be using on your PC to edit the video?
[/quote]
Adobe Premiere (:-/) and Combustion for compositing (much nice than AE) is the current plan.

[quote[The products I’ve worked with in the past are those of DPS (now part of Leitch), makers of dpsReality and Velocity editing software, as well as Eyeon Software’s Digital Fusion (nice compositor)
[/quote]
I’ll check them out.

[quote]If you are on a budget I know that Avid was giving away a lite, DV-only version of it’s editor.
[/quote]
Ok, thanks man.