Dive Into Java?

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

> You don't seem to understand what is happening here. The fact that
> string literals in java exist has nothing to do with an implicit
> type casting as above example shows.

Whoops. "10", arg and _arg /are/ integers, right?
 
> C++ was new, nobody forced them to keep pointers around.

For compatibility reasons to C it seems quite necessary.

[interface compatibility to String]
> That isn't possible with python, too. 

No? Mh, perhaps it's too late for my brain tonight ;)

> Python has those clunky rules as well as C++ - or don't you write
> character literals like
> 
> "abcd"
> 
> in C++ as well? Where exactly is that clunky?

IMHO, that only for String class

String spam = "eggs";

works (in Java).
 
> But choices let you make more errors - which was my point from the
> beginning: java is a limited language, and I don't like it too
> much. But it makes it hard to do things wrong. C++ makes it hard
> to make them right.

I agree. *If* one is an absolute beginner with programming. C++ may
have too many weird options in places where Java has one possible
solution.

Regards,


Björn

-- 
BOFH excuse #364:

Sand fleas eating the Internet cables