RE: [GD-General] Java bitching

[Rob H. <ro...@ir...>]

The problem here is that a byte in java is signed.

//so this will compile
byte[] a = {0x7f, 0x01}

//whereas 0xff is bigger than 2^7-1(0x7f) so it requires an explicit cast
byte[] a = {(byte)0xff, 0x7f};

As one who has spent quite a bit of time over the last 4+ years programming
in java, most of Mr. Zawinski's complaints come from a lack of knowledge
about the language, but in all fairness he clarifies that at the beginning.
"Therefore, some of the following complaints might have been addressed in
later versions of the language, or they might have been misunderstandings on
my part."

Rob Hughes

-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Brian Hook
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:52 AM
To: Gam...@li...
Subject: RE: [GD-General] Java bitching


> 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 };

Isn't that a compiler problem and not a language problem, or does the
language assume that bytes are characters?  If it's a compiler problem,
then I won't fault Java for it, but if it's a language thing -- um, ick.

I'm all for language purity, but when it interferes with actual,
practical getting work done (like Eiffel's lack of hex constants), then
I'm against it.  What I DON'T like are syntactic helpers that are purely
stylistic; however, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Brian


_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general