Now we're debating semantics;

Clearly removing something from javadoc listings, auto-complete
dialogs, etcetera is still a pretty obvious from of 'removal'.

Either way, when the decision is made to use @Obsolete (or removing it
altogether - it really doesn't matter!) - there's old code out there
that needs to be rewritten. Having a tool that finds usages that are
now discouraged, and is actually capable of rewriting the code into
the new, proper form (refactor!) would be a great boon.


Such a project isn't really very related to what lombok is doing, but
when I get around to adding 'find lombokifyable code and lombokify
it', I'll be sure to make it nice and frameworky so you can add your
own stuff.


On Aug 1, 11:42 am, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> > On 1 Aug 2009, at 09:44, Jess Holle wrote
> >> I still really don't get the fascination with removing stuff.
>
> > It's all about reading.  Generally, the less code there is to read the  
> > easier it is to understand what's going on.  "Can't see the wood for  
> > the trees" syndrome.
>
> Yes, but that does not necessitate removal.  An @Obsolete annotation and
> hiding such things by default in Javadoc and code completion and
> collapsing them in code editors (all by default there needs to be a
> "show all" view in any case) gives readability without breaking software.
>
> Actually removing things will break a substantial amount of software in
> most cases and fragment the Java community.  Simply filtering out cruft
> and moving it to legacy compatibility modules where possible gives
> almost all the benefits of removal without the cost.
>
> --
> Jess Holle
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to