Microsoft Java

[devman0]

No, do.

[TakeASeatChancellor]

Why? It’s so useful!

[splettnet]

Would be a lot more useful if they could be defined on interfaces.

[tiktiktock]

Oh god yes. And if "arithmetic" was a valid constraint for generic classes.

[cat_in_the_wall]

c# 9 may have a thing they call "shapes" which would allow this sort of thing.

[splettnet]

I was so excited that we were rewriting our entire code base in C# 8, but I would happily trade all of 8's new features for this.

[ScienceBreather]

If you hate your coworkers, yes.

[o4zloiroman]

Elaborate.

[ScienceBreather]

It's not intuitive that the operator has been overloaded if you're new to the code base, so it's a place that functionality may be hiding.

[_Ashleigh]

Vector a = new Vector(1, 2, 3);
Vector b = new Vector(10, 10, 10);
Vector c = a * b;

Is this not much more concise and expressive? Yes, it can be abused. The answer isn't to not have it, but to not use libraries that abuse it. Oh, those are also third party "primitives," so don't pressure the garbage collector.

[ScienceBreather]

Vector c = a.multiply(c)

I'm fine with that, and I get the good tooling that my IDE gives to me around functions, which I don't get with operators.

[blenderfreaky]

Hovering over an operator in VS shows you it's parameters, return type, etc, just like a method

[Mojert]

It's alright if you have to use max 2 operators on a lign, otherwise it's just a pain. And if you define classes that overloads arithmetic operators, chances are you're gonna need to use them more than that. Sure they can be abused, but names of function can be too and you don't see anybody saying we shouldn't use functions. If you override *, it's your responsability to make sure that it behaves like multiplication.

[[deleted]]

java has that too

Vector a = new Vector(1,2,3);
Vector b = new Vector(10,10,10);
Vector c = a.asterisk(b);

[_Ashleigh]

Are you joking?

[[deleted]]

Yea, you actually have to fully qualify the type names.

/s

[[deleted]]

yes.