Re: [GD-General] Java bitching

[Colin F. <cp...@ea...>]

January 4th, 2002
Friday

>>>
http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html
>>>
>>>Brian

Let me add a Java gripe!

I was disappointed that something like
the following Java code doesn't compile:

// Loss of precision: int to byte
byte [] a = { 0xff, 0x7f };

Forcing me to do this:

// Okay
byte [] a = { (byte)0xff, (byte)0x7f };

It just makes the code ugly when there
are, say, 1024 bytes in a table!
I think the Java compiler could postpone
deciding that hex literals in a byte
array are 'int', and go with the 
assumption that they're 'byte' until
an excessive value, like 0x100, is
encountered!  Why not?  Confusion? ;-)

Also, although I can see how having
signed integer types (char, short,
int, long) eliminates the wacky math
situations that can arise with
UN-signed types, I sometimes wish I
could use an unsigned integer type
in Java. I guess using 31 bits of "int"
is okay, and then you need to go to
"long" for 32 up to 63 unsigned bits.
But I was porting a table of 32-bit
unsigned int's from C to Java, and
having to do all operations in terms
of "long"'s seems like a waste.

I'll admit, the low-level bit madness
I am dealing with is probably not the
kind of computer science Java is 
promoting -- so I downgrade this "gripe"
to "tale of inconvenience".  I don't
want Sun's QA to enter another "Highest Priority"
entry in the Gripezilla or GripeTracker 
database on my account!

--- Colin