note jreades <p>Java has both primitives and object-versions for each of the primitives. I think that the Java designers knew that they would have a mutiny if they forced everyone to write:</p> <code> Integer i = new Integer(3); </code> <p>So they gave you a short-hand way (that doesn't give you the object functionality) which is:</p> <code> int i = 3; </code> <p>However, you can always promote your primitives to objects, and the primitives very limited (you can't even do string concatenation without using a StringBuffer object). Actually, to be more specific (since [gjb] rightly called me on this):</p> <ul> <li>When you call the overloaded '+' on two String objects in Java, what is actually returned is an entirely new String that is the result of concatenating the two previous Strings (this is also the case when using '+=' -- you actually get back a new String object, not the old one with some new characters appended to it. Strings are essentially immutable in Java.)</li> <li>This is why you would want to switch to a StringBuffer object when doing a lot of appending in Java, because that <i>doesn't</i> create a lot of new String objects unecessarily.</li> </ul> <p>Anyway, my point was really that Java likes to see the entire world as objects, even the things that we Perl users normally see as primitives, and that to really start to actually <i>do</i> anything in Java you're going to have to get used to objects pretty quickly.</p> <p>However, your point is well-taken and I'm going to be making some edits to my post to take in your (and others') feedback.</p> 218778 218802