From: Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna@...>
Date: 2006-05-27T16:30:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Equivalent of collections in Java

--Apple-Mail-28-756612437
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed


On 26-May-06, at 11:11 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:

> For the sake of bringing this discussion to a close, I will retract my
> statement about Java's static typing causing so many data structures.
> It seems it was really a design choice and the typing didn't affect it
> too much. Though I think the plethora of classes is a result of a
> certain design philosophy that comes from static typing (this may seem
> contradictory to the previous sentence but I think I'm just having a
> hard time articulating my point.) As a counterexample I would be
> curious to see a dynamically typed language which has such a huge
> variety of collection classes built into the language or standard
> library.

See the various Smalltalks. Most are rich with a variety of data =20
structures.

>> I don't think agile methodologies make the distinction between sets
>> and maps or sets and arrays superfluous...
>
> I never said it did. I'm mostly speaking about the second level you
> get in Java: ArrayList versus LinkedList, HashMap versus TreeMap, etc.
> But when you are coding Java I guess you are just used to that. I'd
> rather code Ruby.

As I mentioned before in a previous posting, the choice between an =20
ArrayList and a LinkedList is very simple. If you need fast random =20
access, use an ArrayList; if you don't, a LinkedList is probably =20
best. It's not exactly rocket science, and if it takes you longer =20
than a half a second to figure out what you need, perhaps you're on =20
the wrong career path, or should get some rest.

> 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-28-756612437--