Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 28th Jul 2006 18:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 147207
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
The problem with operator overloading is that it doesn't immediately make it clear to the programmer what's happening when you see a line of code. I used to be in the C++ camp, firmly believing that the lack of operator overloading in Java was a bad thing. After having to spend months looking at someone else's C++ code, I'm singing a different tune.
On the other hand, classes like BigDecimal and BigInteger should be treated like String. String has the overloaded + operator, and since BigDecimal and BigInteger are part of the official Java platform, I feel that Sun should have implemented operator overloading for these classes. Operator overloading usually only makes sense when you're writing classes that deal with numeric values of some sort, like a vector or a matrix. Seeing as Java provides all sorts of stuff like XML processing, *two* GUI toolkits, implementing classes like matrices and vectors shouldn't be too much to ask for.