[The Java Posse] Re: #193 - Listener Feedback

[Nasir Qureshi]

Hi Everyone

cant agree more on the websphere and RAD 7 (im using this in my project)

its really complicated and very unstable

loved the comments

Regards

Nasir

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote:

Viktor Klang wrote:

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Alan Kent <ALAN....@saic.com> wrote:

I am not disagreeing - The question is how far you need to go to make it
nice enough to be worth the effort of changing Java.  I am not hung up
on closures for the sake of closures - I look forward to being able to
the functionality described (guaranteed resource free for each resource
claim).  I don't care if its closures, or some other way to call some
code and the start and end of a defined scope.  What excited me was
guaranteed resource freeing with clean, robust code.  At the moment
anonymous inner classes are a bit of a plain with having to use 'final'
on local variables all around the place.  We do it now with anonymous
inner classes, but its a pain at times.

IMHO using "final" on local variables is Good Practice.

Agreed.  Bloch sees it as gratuitous and unnecessary, but I've found it very helpful, if a bit more typing and verbosity.

--
Jess Holle

--
Kind Regards

Nasir Qureshi

Sr. Software Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/in/qureshinasir

Pegasus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.
1111 Plaza Drive Suite 400
Schaumburg, IL 60173
Cell: 224.425.0777
Phone: 847.995.1100 ext 21
Fax: 847.995.1111

[karl....@googlemail.com]

What's complicated about it? If you fully understand the development
outside of the environment I cant see there being any problems? Are
you referring to how intuitive the UI is?

I tend to use RAD to kick start a project and then move over to a more
bespoke environment once out of protoype phase. I

I found RAD 7 very stable on the latest Ubuntu.

Karl

Nasir Qureshi wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> cant agree more on the websphere and RAD 7 (im using this in my project)
>
> its really complicated and very unstable
>
> loved the comments
>
> Regards
>
> Nasir
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote:
>
> > Viktor Klang wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Alan Kent <ALAN....@saic.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am not disagreeing - The question is how far you need to go to make it
> >> nice enough to be worth the effort of changing Java. I am not hung up
> >> on closures for the sake of closures - I look forward to being able to
> >> the functionality described (guaranteed resource free for each resource
> >> claim). I don't care if its closures, or some other way to call some
> >> code and the start and end of a defined scope. What excited me was
> >> guaranteed resource freeing with clean, robust code. At the moment
> >> anonymous inner classes are a bit of a plain with having to use 'final'
> >> on local variables all around the place. We do it now with anonymous
> >> inner classes, but its a pain at times.
> >
> >
> > IMHO using "final" on local variables is Good Practice.
> >

> > Agreed. Bloch sees it as gratuitous and unnecessary, but I've found it *very
> > *helpful, if a bit more typing and verbosity.