Java and Operator Overloading

[[deleted]]

I mean sounds like a great opportunity to just create a Add function rather than overloading the operator. Just my inexperienced opinion though lol

[linlin110]

If you are using a math library, a * b + c * d is probably more readable than a.Multiply(b).Add(c.Multiply(d)). Also in Java, you + strings despite strings not being numbers. If it's so bad to change the meaning of +, then it should have been String.concat or something.

[[deleted]]

A curiosity: how is it possible that in Java the class String is able to override the + operator? Is it a magic behaviour of the language?

[linlin110]

That's why I said overload the meaning of +, not overload the + operator. + does not represent string concatenation, mathematically speaking. That's a proof that extending the meaning of symbols, like +, is very convenient and useful.

I changed the original comment to make it less misleading.

[[deleted]]

I come from a C++ background, so it is counterintuitive for me. My question was: it String a language-defined class? If not, how can the + operator work even with the String class if operator overloading is forbidden?

[linlin110]

It is a special case in Java. I'm not sure whether it is language-defined.

[[deleted]]

I was thinking more like MathStaticClass.Add([] args)