I managed to tune out tonight's Java lesson. He spent over an hour talking about method overloading and passing/returning objects. His only real snaffu was trying to describe "immutable" objects by overwriting a string object. What actually happened is that the object reference was overwritten and not modified, but not because the string object is immutable. That would have happened to any other object if you assigned a new object or any other existing object of the same type on the same variable.
Why isn't a string object mutable? I can't think of any real reason not to allow it, other than the fact that they want people to think it's a native type and can't change in the current scope by passing it into another object. Really?
I'm trying to be considerate by not leaving in the middle of him talking since he doesn't plan on covering any new material at this point. Maybe I'm already being impolite by not really paying him much attention. As for after class I'm trying to talk myself into baking more pumpkin pies after I get home, even if it will take 2 or 3 hours, because I won't have time until Thursday and the pumpkin puree has been sitting in the fridge since Saturday.
*hits F5 on webmail*