Properties on the Java wishlist

[NiTiN]

I've used both Java and C# .NET and am a fan of both. I loved Java for
generics in 1.5 and Java still rocks at it. C# .NET then incorporated
that idea, though it's not as programmer-friendly as Java's solution.

I liked the C# .NET bandwagon as the language supported properties - a
replacement for regular get and set methods. I really wish Java would
incorporate it in the next version.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

I've used both Java and C# .NET and am a fan of both. I loved Java for
generics in 1.5 and Java still rocks at it. C# .NET then incorporated
that idea, though it's not as programmer-friendly as Java's solution.

I liked the C# .NET bandwagon as the language supported properties - a
replacement for regular get and set methods. I really wish Java would
incorporate it in the next version.

The best place to express that might be..
<http://jcp.org/en/home/index>
...or as an RFE through the bug database.
(both of which, others can vote for*, and
Sun might actually be expected to read).

* Assuming they do not vanish into the aether,
as sometimes happens with bug reports - have
not tried the JCP.

Andrew T.

 

[Mike Schilling]

I've used both Java and C# .NET and am a fan of both. I loved Java for
generics in 1.5 and Java still rocks at it. C# .NET then incorporated
that idea, though it's not as programmer-friendly as Java's solution.

Really? How are Java's half-assed erased generics friendlier than C#'s
complete implementation?

 

[RedGrittyBrick]

Really? How are Java's half-assed erased generics friendlier than C#'s
complete implementation?

Who cares?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

I liked the C# .NET bandwagon as the language supported properties - a
replacement for regular get and set methods. I really wish Java would
incorporate it in the next version.

Why bother ?

It is just get and set with same functionality but different syntax !

It is still coding by convention not something that is enforced by
the language/compiler.

Arne