Google delivers Java 'convenience' APIs

Google has published code for Java to reduce the amount of hand coding needed for commonly occurring or popular features in applications. The search giant has slipped out its Google Collections Library 1.0, extending Sun Microsystems' existing Java Collection Framework. The code has already been tested in Google's GMail, …

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF

"makes the notoriously complex Java easier to work with"

As an ex Java developer, you completely lost me there.

[amanfromMars 1]

WTF Squared

Seconded, AC. Some things just couldn't be, or wouldn't need to be, simpler. :-) Nice to see Google wising up though, and trying to get with the Flowww.

[John Fairhurst]

Still a Search Company

One has to wonder if Google can really be considered a Search Company any more?

It's where its getting the income, but one has to wonder where the core of its interests lie these days...

[Alastair 7]

Reg, I'm disappointed

Where's the foaming at the mouth Google-hate?

When I read an article about Google on El Reg I expect nothing but negativity and paranoia. This article is, instead, informative and free of bias. It's difficult to put my disappointment into words.

[c 1]

I second the WTF

Java "notoriously complex"?: Bollocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh?

"makes the notoriously complex Java easier to work with"

You are kidding, right? Or are you one of those fresh-out-of-a-uni-degree-course-that-didn't-teach-you-anything types?

Go back to VB6.

[Gulfie]

I'm with AC on this one...

As a Java architect/designer/developer I've only had problems working with poorly written user code. One of the beauties of Java is its simplicity. Provided you can grok OO.

And as for Google Collections, it's not exactly new, you know. It's been kicking around for some time. Although perhaps not as a 1.0 release, probably more as a beta.

[Anonymous Coward]

News ?

I guess so, but is the release of a new, not particularly sexy and (potentially - I did read the supporting article) unstable library the best you can do - just because it's from google ?

[Iggle Piggle]

I'm prepared to seem ignorant but

Does this mean that Java supports generics/template classes but does not deliver implementations of standard things such as List<T> and Dictionary<TKey,TValue>? Of course the language should be separate from the libraries but if Google thought it necessary to create their own then either the standard implementation is not that good or does not exist.

In either case it means that people developing Java code must either rely on third parties or write their own and my problem with this is you eventually come to a point where project A uses one set of libraries while project B uses another and when projects A and B meet you have to jump through hoops converting.

What I like about C# is that if I want a list of strings then I am very likely to use the standard .Net List<String> and chances are that almost every other C# developer will do the same. This means when C# project A meets B it all just works. Of course trying to get it to run on other platforms is another issue.

[Cazzo Enorme]

@Iggle Piggle

Java supports generics, and has done since version 5 - the one targeted by this library. Briefly scanning the list of class names in Google's library, for the large part they seem to serve the same purpose as the ones in the concurrent package that comes as standard with the Java runtime.

[Mike Cardwell]

Re: I'm prepared to seem ignorant but

Iggle, Java already has those things of course.

The java.util.List interface - http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/List.html

The following classes which implement it: AbstractList, AbstractSequentialList, ArrayList, AttributeList, CopyOnWriteArrayList, LinkedList, RoleList, RoleUnresolvedList, Stack, Vector

You can create a List<String> using the standard Java libraries.

And the class java.util.Dictionary - http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/Dictionary.html

And many other basic types.

[Rob Davis]

"notoriously complex"? compared to what? alternative: commons.apache.org libraries

I agree with others disputing "makes the notoriously complex Java easier to work with". WTF to the power of n!

"notoriously complex" - compared to what other language/development/environment? The article author should qualify this statement by comparing it with something else.

On the subject of libraries to enhance the language, take a look at commons.apache.org

[Martin McNulty]

Isn't this what...

Commons collections gives you?

http://commons.apache.org/collections/

[Nat Pryce]

Much better than commons collections

Commons collections is basically unsupported. It does not support generics, for example.

Google collections has excellent support for functional programming idioms. I've used it in production code for some time and found it very useful for cutting out boilerplate code for iterating through, mapping & folding collections.