On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > It isn't just lack of test cases leading to deprecations. I had a use just > now for some of the code and in the process of adding test cases to get rid > of the deprecations found it wasn't quite right. If dipping into 4 > routines > uncovers 1 medium to minor bug, there must be quite a few more of those > lurking. >
Wouldn't this be all the more reason to leave that code "ugly" so that as we dig in and use it bit by bit, adding test cases and fixing bugs, we also "pretty-ify" it? Following the "broken-window" analogy, don't go fixing a bunch of windows in a neighborhood where you don't even know if the floorboards on the abandoned houses are rotten out. Fix the windows when that particular house is "move-in-ready". -jake > > > > *shrug* That code still has way more issues than just formatting, it's > > done in an entirely different style, was aimed at compiling against, like > > jdk1.2, and really needs some care and attention, and maybe possibly > > even some *use* at some point! > > > > Indeed. >
