I see kotlin.List and kotlin.MutableList is implemented by java.util.ArrayList. But where did kotlin put this trick? Compiler or somewhere in stdlib?
If kotlin supports making a class implementing an interface outside of its definition file like the ArrayList case, it will be fascinated.
No, it is not supported.
You are right, that is only a compiler trick. There are lots of magic applied to the collections to make them right. Fortunately it is not available to the devs. Special paragraph in the docs: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/java-interop.html#mapped-types
Related
As you know the private classes in Kotlin change to package-private under the hood and internals changed to the public.
unfortunately, this can lead to the known problem here.
if the compiler sees the usage of Kotlin internal classes when it wants to change it to the byte code, it can choose package-private for internal kotlin classes that didn't use outside of the package and choose public for others, so we can handle above problem on our own.
Or they can define another annotation such as #JvmPackagePrivate before internal classes to tell the compiler we want a package-private class in java.
Or they can do both.
The question is, why they don't solve this obvious problem with such an obvious solution?
Are they have another approach to solve this?
I just got acquainted with the Kotlin, so I think that I cant create lib for java with kotlin because when I create internal concrete classes, all client can see them outside of the library and its serious problem with kotlin. why they can't see this obvious problem??????
I want to mention that none of the answers in here solve this problem because of #JvmSynthetic and #JvmName just target the fun in kotlin, not classes and at the end they both visible even if they change the name of classes.
at last kotlin claims that it is completely interoperable with java but I think it's not right. better to say that it is 99 percent interoperable with java :)
Apache Camel comes with some relatively nice Groovy extensions so that you, for instance, can use closures with the Java DSL for defining routes.
Most, if not all, of the additional methods providing these extensions seem to be located in the class CamelGroovyMethods with static methods like
public static ProcessorDefinition<?> process(ProcessorDefinition<?> self,
Closure<?> processorLogic){/* implementation */}
How is the actual extension of the Camel java classes realised? Is CamelGroovyMethods used as a category somewhere, and if so, where is use(CamelGroovyMethods) called?
Just a guess, but as they are called extension methods they have probably been defined as such. Look in the jar, you should find a file called org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ExtensionModule in META-INF/services. Have a look at Creating an extension module. I've used this technique myself and it works great except if you want to provide custom constructors, that requires an alternate mechanism.
...
Yep, found it ExtensionModule file in GitHub. They even provided the dsld file to assist with code completion in Eclipse.
In Java, when you override a method, you are advised (almost forced) to add the #Override annotation. Is there a convention to mark (either in comments, or by some other mechanism) overridden methods in the Objective-C world?
No. All methods in Objective-C are sent via Objective-C's messaging, so all methods can be overridden. That's part of the language.
There's no convention for marking this, either. It's part of the language that it happens, and if you were to comment otherwise it'd just be confusing when you did it later, accidentally or intentionally.
I'm not sure if Xcode does this, but the AppCode IDE from Jetbrains automatically annotates overridden methods with the little blue override badge in the margin, like so:
. . further to that (also shown), I also like to create some live templates (aka code-snippets in Xcode) to annotate overridden methods with a #pragma tag. I find that it helps to define a standard structure in this order:
class methods
initialization & destruction
public methods / protocol methods
overridden methods
private methods
and by having Live Templates/Code Snippets I can just type 'override [tab]' and the IDE will create the #pragma tag for me.
. . perhaps you could even use OCLint to check that this structure is adhered to.
No, not really.
It doesn't seem to matter as much, probably because of the dynamic dispatch.
It's common in a lot of classes in JDK, just a few examples:
java.util.Properties
load0
store0
java.lang.Thread
start0
stop0
setPriority0
Usually they are private native methods (like in Thread class), but sometimes they are just private (Properties class)
I'm just curious if anybody know if there is any history behind that.
I believe they are named like that because equivalent functions with same names exist in the code and just to distinguish between native helper functions and public functions they decided to suffix them with 0.
in java.util.Properties both load, store and load0, store0 exist.
The 0 after the method name is done so to distinguish between public and private methods having same name .
Start function will call the start0 function.
Those functions which ends with 0 is private method.
And those which are not ending with number is public.
You can check in any of the library.
The use of zero suffixes on method names is just a convention to deal with cases where you have a public API method and a corresponding private method. In the Java SE libraries, this is commonly used for the native methods that provide the underlying functionality implemented by the classes. (You can see what is going on by looking at the OpenJDK source code.)
But your questions are:
Why some java methods in core libraries end with numbers?
Because someone thought it would be a good idea. It is not strictly necessary since they typically could have overloaded the public methods instead. And since the zero suffix matters are private, the naming of methods should not be relevant beyond the class and its native implementation.
I'm just curious if anybody know if there is any history behind that.
There is no mention of this convention in the original Java Style Guide. In fact, I think it predates Java. I vaguely recall seeing it in C libraries in 4.x BSD Unix. That was the mid 1980's. And I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted it from somewhere else.
Some of my co-workers make extensive use of the VB.net concept of Modules. Unfortunately, I just don't 'get it'. I see no benefit in using modules over shared classes. Am I missing something? When would it be preferable to use a module? Or am I (as I do quite often in this language) 'just not getting it'?
In VB.net a module is a shared class. When they are compiled they are given a private constructor and methods set to shared.
There are some times when you are forced to use modules by the compiler (in the same way static classes are in C#) such as for extension methods which can not be created in side a VB.Net class.
By using modules for your helper methods you will make it easier to convert them over to extension methods later and restrict others from adding any instance methods or constructors.
That said they are a hang over from VB6 that did not support full OO programming and beyond standalone helper methods they would not widely be used.
A module is essentially the same as a shared class. The major difference is that in a module, there's no need for all the extra "shared"s, cause everything's implicitly shared. If you have no instance data and are just using the class as a kind of namespace for functions, then it's a better idea (IMO) to use a module instead and make that clear.