From: Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna@...>
Date: 2006-05-26T04:01:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Equivalent of collections in Java

--Apple-Mail-24-625241544
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed


On 25-May-06, at 11:59 AM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:

>> Java collections indeed offer more *functionality*: these are the
>> collection types which do not have an equivalent in Ruby's std lib:
>> TreeSet, TreeMap, LinkedList, IdentityHashMap, Stack and the
>> synchronized Collections Vector and Hashtable.
>
> I think having to guess which one of these you want to use based on
> perceived need is a form of premature optimization, and this overly
> complicates the development process. How many Ruby programs have truly
> needed classes like the above? Also Ruby's Array can act much like
> Java's Stack.

I think that if I were to come across a situation where I needed a =20
list data structure and my program was going to be making lots of =20
random accesses, picking a linked list would just be silly. So while =20
in some cases, I think you would be right with premature =20
optimization, you cannot just go making that sweeping claim responsibly.

> Ryan

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca


"The proof is the proof that the proof has been proven and that's the =20=

proof!" - Jean Chr=E9tien


--Apple-Mail-24-625241544--