On Sunday 09 December 2001 22:50, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sun, 2001-12-09 at 19:59, Bobby Nations wrote: > > The collections classes in Java 2 mimic the STL in many ways, but > > are less elegant than STL because you have to cast everything to > > the appropriate object type when retrieving from a collection. > > IMHO, the lack of templates and operator overloading are among > > the two biggest shortcomings in Java (sometimes the lack of > > reliable destructors moves up the list as well :-|). > > I actually love the fact that Java is so strongly typed. You know > exactly what you are dealing with at the point you are trying to > work with it. In reading the Sword I have become very confused at > points trying to figure out if some of the classes are Strings, > chars, ints, or whatever (not to mention you can have Objects > imitating primitives, Ugh). When you know what an Object is you > know what you can do with it, what data elements it holds, what > behaviors it will provide, etc. I am finding this is probably the > most difficult thing about reading through the code. Just a > personal thing I guess. >
That's why I like a good IDE like KDevelop. I downloaded the sword CVS and loaded it into KDevelop. While examining the code if I want to look at the definition of a function, constant, var, etc.... I highlight it and click right mouse and grep it. All occurances are lilsted, begining with the def. Just lazy :)
