About "considering we still have to use Vector from time to time": I asked Mark if he will put them in a "dirty old Java" module that can be excluded in a profile. Basically, have clean new Java list of modules as a base, and then add "dirty old Java" if you need on top. His totally wrongly paraphrased answer: - We don't want to cover a profile with a mud pile. - If you don't want Vector and Hashtable don't use them.
Kind of disappointing :( I want strong deprecation by moving classes to "muddy" modules. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree, but that's obviously not the way it's ever done in Java, > considering we still have to use Vector from time to time (i.e. when > doing data models for Swing stuff). Indeed, it will be interesting to > see JSR-310 arrive and how JavaDoc and code completion deals with > transitive deprecations such as the one from <Date>.getMonth() to > <Calendar>.get(Calendar.MONTH) to <DateTime>.getMonth(). > > /Casper > > On Dec 12, 12:06 pm, BoD <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about saying f*ck to backwards compatibility? New projects use the > > new (new) reified collections, and old code stays with the current > > erasure system. And old and new code don't talk to each other. I could > > live with that! > > > > BoD > > > > Frederic Simon wrote: > > > What Alex Buckley said on Java7 BOF: > > > There is an experimental project doing reification and the mess of > > > mixed types: Type with no generics, Type with erased generics, and > > > Type with reified generics... Generate a Big pile of typing mud :) > > > > > What I say: > > > I don't know what is needed for the JVM to manage reified type (may be > > > nothing?), and that's needed for sure. > > > We need to have a good reified language that has clean API (mainly > > > collections) with enforced generics, which is not Java. And then the > > > integration type mud is manegeable (still hard but doable). > > > In Java itself it's going to be a nightmare! > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Mark Derricutt <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > Was anything said a Devoxx over the reification of generics in > > > Java 7 at all? I do so hope that makes it in... > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Alan Kent <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > I think having generics is a big step forward over not having > > > generics - I use them a lot too. Just avoiding casts for > > > every ArrayList get call is a big win. > > > > > -- > > > "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized > > > code." -- Bill Harlan > > > > > -- > > >http://www.jfrog.org/ > > >http://freddy33.blogspot.com/ > > >http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/ > > > -- http://www.jfrog.org/ http://freddy33.blogspot.com/ http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
