?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Java is lame yet again - The Mad Schemes of Dr. Tectonic [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Beemer

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Java is lame yet again [Nov. 15th, 2006|03:44 pm]
Beemer
Things to hate about Java, #5801:

I get why Java has both Strings and StringBuffers. There are advantages to each, and times when you want to use one rather than the other.

Like, if you're building a long string up out of a lot of little pieces, it's a whole lot more efficient to do it with a StringBuffer, which is designed for that kind of thing, than do it with Strings, because they're immutable and the '+' operator gets translated invisibly into a temporary StringBuffer and some calls to append(), so why not do it that way explicitly in the first place, right?

So, given that the number-one usage of StringBuffer is almost certain to be to concatenating a bunch of Strings together, and given that StringBuffer is just as much a part of the Java language core as String, and given that you can use the '+' and '+=' operators on Strings...

Why in the name of all that is holy is '+=' NOT aliased to 'append()' for StringBuffers?

Argh, I say. Argh.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: navrins
2006-11-16 05:11 pm (UTC)
Except append() is a statement and + is part of an expression. So I think you really want '+=' to be shorthand for append(), not '+'.

In more concrete terms,

StringBuffer sb;
sb += "!";

should be the equivalent of

sb.append("!");

It doesn't make sense to say,

sb + "!";

and I can't see why you'd want to say

sb2 = sb + "!";

though I suppose you might (but that's not the equivalent of append() anyway since append() modifies sb, and nobody expects '+' to have side effects).

I'm not really disagreeing with your rant; I'm just nitpicking it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)