If I asked you what the largest possible Integer in Java is, you would easily answer 2^31-1, or Integer.MAX_VALUE. Smallest possible Integer? Integer.MIN_VALUE, -2^31.
How about a Long? It’s also a Number, and each Number has MIN_VALUE and MAX_VALUE, and you would be right to refer to them.
Obvious and boring, right?
How about a Double then?
It’s also a Number, and so it has Double.MAX_VALUE, and yes that is the maximum. Minimum? Let me go already, obviously Double.MIN_VALUE!
Nope.
I only learned it today even though I’ve been programming Java for years. Double.MIN_VALUE is actually a positive number. Quick look at docs says it all: It is the smallest positive nonzero value of type double. If you’re really looking for the smallest value of Double, you need to refer to Double.MIN_NORMAL.
Yes, docs are very clear about it. Yes, it is a static constant, so LSP does not really apply (as if Java didn’t violate it all the time). Yet I still think it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but needs batteries. It has different semantics for no good reason, does not follow the principle of least surprise and is plain unintuitive. I add it to my shelf of quirks along with half of Swing, everything around Dates and Calendars, equals and… what am I still doing here by the way?
Uhhh, you’ve programmed in JavaScript, and you’re complaining that Java has annoying quirks? That’s like the driver of an Isuzu Trooper pointing out flaws in a Ford F-150. Java is far from perfect, and this Double.MIN_VALUE thing is insane, and navigating the minefield of JTable’s shortcomings is infuriating, but compared to JavaScript, it’s a little slice of nirvana.