[stelonix]

Nonsense. To paraphrase myself from a similar discussion on reddit:

"List.add(otherList) <-- what does this do? Why, compared to operators, would a function name be any better than an operator? Mathematics are part of computer science, and denying basic operators for a reason like "because someone might misuse them" is like denying functions because someone may implement a sum() and call it lcm() (and then we're back to goto land). You're confusing a programmer's error (bad choice of a name/operator function) with a language feature. Just because people can write bad code it does not mean we should disallow them to write great code."

Honestly, it's about time the Java crowd stops with the mantra and starts thinking from themselves. Or at least, learn why the reason you hate operator overloading is fallacious.

[pjmlp]

That is what I keep repeating when people complain about operator overloading.

It is just symbolic names, like doing abstract mathematics with letters instead of numbers.

Except for C, Java and Go, all the remaining mainstream languages allow for symbolic names in the functions/methods.

I never understood what was the big deal.

[smackfu]

It just seems an odd hill to die on. Just a minor little feature that most people would use only occasionally in their objects.

[masklinn]

> Just a minor little feature that most people would use only occasionally in their objects.

Yeah until you have to work with java's Bignums one day, then you start wanting to choke people to death.

[PySlice]

Yeah, I guess it sucks if you work with Bignums. I would be happy if BigInteger and BigDecimal were promoted String-level language support: still implemented as classes, but with compiler support. They could add indexing [] for collections, but I can live with .get() and .put().

Some people seem to think that if they don't use, then it doesn't matter. In many business applications, you don't even need floating point (you just transfer data to the database and back), anyway.

Are floats and doubles "little features"?

In computer graphics, you need lots of floating point calculations. Are ints and longs "little features"?

In embedded software, you usually don't want to use resizable strings (C doesn't even have this feature built-in), because reallocations are expensive or unavailable. Are resizable strings (or containers) "little features"?

Different programs have different needs. If you haven't stumbled upon a good use case, doesn't mean that it's useless.

[smackfu]

This same logic can be used to defend any "little feature". Language design is all about where you draw those lines.

[PySlice]

That logic is just a starting point (just to avoid the "I don't need it, why can't you be just like me?"), not the whole thing.

Then you have to take into account a few other criteria, such as [1] internal coherence in the language, [2] difficulty in implementation (and explaining to others) [3] what your target audience is, and what they want, [4] what competitors are doing.

I think full operator overloading would hurt [2], but special-casing Bignums would not hurt [1], [2] at all (as I said, JSP EL already have +,-,*,/, etc. , String already have +, +=).

[3] This is what this thread is all about, no need to repeat :-D

And [4]... Well in this case Java is really playing catch up.

[stelonix]

I disagree wholeheartedly: the verbosity caused by a lack of such an 'irrelevant' feature makes my eyes bleed.

It doesn't really matter, some people see classes/objects as a minor feature too. I agree with him: operator overloading is not a minor feature and it's probably one of the reasons I am not very fond of Java.

[MartinCron]

It just seems an odd hill to die on.

There's an axiom to be found somewhere there. If it's a hill, someone will be willing to die on it.

[gjulianm]

Absolutely agree with you. I haven't seen yet a real reason to avoid including operator overloading in any language.

[twic]

There is exactly one such reason: programmers. Python programmers were given operator overloading, and did a good job with it. C++ and Scala programmers were given operator overloading, and did a bad job with it (eg << in C++'s streams, ^ in Scala's specs2).

I have never heard a convincing theory of why some language communities were careful in their use of operators, whilst others went overboard. In the absence of such a theory, it's a risky feature to add.

[stelonix]

Well, it's time to disallow functions, since someone can misuse their names. And exceptions, since someone might use it as goto. Might as well get rid of non-primitive types, there might be a very bad person willing to name a class with a completely meaningless name.

[smrtinsert]

the nice part about java is the legibility. I can simply start with a new instance of your object and auto complete to the method that I want. Once operator overloading joins the fray everyone is off to the races for crappy dsl of the week. "here's how you do the XXX lib way".

I'd prefer if that option stays off the table. Given that java users are on ides, autocompletion makes an api call a one character effort anyway and saves us from tons of stupid operators.

[prodigal_erik]

Java users are stuck with IDEs largely because it's so hard to design a decent DSL when you're confined to Java method syntax. Autocomplete doesn't make it any easier to read bulky verbose code, just gives you more of it.