(This is a snapshot of my old weblog. New posts and selected republished essays can be found at raganwald.com.)
Friday, March 07, 2008
It's not just closures: Another Ruby idiom shows up in Java
There has been a recent flurry of posts discussing approaches to dealing with objects that aren’t there and methods that can’t be handled. Not to mention references back to implementing Monads as an alternative to explicit error-handling.
It’s all very refreshing, and valuable: Ruby is growing from the fringe. And it looks like the Java folks are listening: JSR-666 has added UnthrowableExceptions to its much-lauded SchödingerExceptions.
The proposed syntax is familiar to Ruby programmers:
Hmmm… Is this something we’ve seen before?
There has been a recent flurry of posts discussing approaches to dealing with objects that aren’t there and methods that can’t be handled. Not to mention references back to implementing Monads as an alternative to explicit error-handling.
It’s all very refreshing, and valuable: Ruby is growing from the fringe. And it looks like the Java folks are listening: JSR-666 has added UnthrowableExceptions to its much-lauded SchödingerExceptions.
The proposed syntax is familiar to Ruby programmers:
yoda (UnsupportedEncodingException) {
String s = new String(byteArray, "UTF-8");
}Hmmm… Is this something we’ve seen before?
Comments on “It's not just closures: Another Ruby idiom shows up in Java”:
<< Home
It's dangerous to make jokes about programming languages: almost every parody feature you can think of has already been tried out seriously.—Guy Steele, Jr.
try {
s = new String(byteArray, "UTF-8");
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
}
That's a really nice example of where Java went wrong.
s = new String(byteArray, "UTF-8");
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
}
That's a really nice example of where Java went wrong.
Not really, Reg...
The proposed yoda actually transforms checked exceptions which are not supposed to ever happen into runtime (unchecked) exceptions. It does not suppress them nor return values like Ruby's inline rescue does. (and, contrary to using an inline rescue, it's not supposed to ever happen)
The proposed yoda actually transforms checked exceptions which are not supposed to ever happen into runtime (unchecked) exceptions. It does not suppress them nor return values like Ruby's inline rescue does. (and, contrary to using an inline rescue, it's not supposed to ever happen)
The proposed yoda actually transforms checked exceptions which are not supposed to ever happen into runtime (unchecked) exceptions.
Oh dear this has become really serious. So is it sugar for try { ... } catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) { throw new RuntimeError(e.getMessage()); }???
Oh dear this has become really serious. So is it sugar for try { ... } catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) { throw new RuntimeError(e.getMessage()); }???
But this is no joke. Unreachable.
My buddy John Duimovich pointed it out to me in his blog post Yes, Virginia there is an Unreachable Clause.
The beauty of Unreachable, which I don't believe Ruby can touch at present:
Unreachable is a subtype of every type (even primitive types). No other type is a subtype of Unreachable. It is a compile-time error to convert null to Unreachable. It is an error to cast to the type Unreachable.
My buddy John Duimovich pointed it out to me in his blog post Yes, Virginia there is an Unreachable Clause.
The beauty of Unreachable, which I don't believe Ruby can touch at present:
Unreachable is a subtype of every type (even primitive types). No other type is a subtype of Unreachable. It is a compile-time error to convert null to Unreachable. It is an error to cast to the type Unreachable.
<< Home
