|
|
|
|
|
|
by shadowmatter
2164 days ago
|
|
|
Agreed. Joda had the right abstractions (instants, durations, etc) but the class hierarchy for them was unnecessarily complex. A lot of this complexity comes from opting for the abstractions to be either mutable or immutable. For example, `ReadableInstant` [1] in Joda implements 3 interfaces and has 7 subclasses. And really, what is the difference between `AbstractDateTime` and `BaseDateTime`? Whereas `Instant` from java.time [2] is an immutable value type and I haven't found it lacking in any respect. On the whole java.time has struck me as extremely well designed (after coming from Python and previous date and time libraries in Java) and I think it would behoove other languages to liberally copy its design. [1] https://www.joda.org/joda-time/apidocs/org/joda/time/Readabl... [2] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/time/Instant.... |
|
|