Whether or not it'll be legal in java7 isn't too relevant to lombok; lombok can change whatever it wants, including the grammar. If there's a compelling lombok transformation that requires the ability to annotate a stand-alone codeblock, we can change the grammar to make that legal. Allowing @Synchronized on a block would be kind of nice. Not high priority, but I'll keep that in mind. For most other 'what if we annotate the code block?' kind of features, it usually makes more sense to create a new keyword or some other new syntax.
On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > Hence, I don't really care what the wider java community > > thinks or wants. I care about what the vocal minority wants. > > > NB: Casper Bang makes a pretty good case for #2 as well (meritocracy > > beats democracy in matters of language design). Couldn't agree more, > > more Casper. > > Good points, but I still see troubles: > > 1. You're assuming that the "vocal" people are the smartest guys (= > winners in a meritocratic context). I doubt that the two groups are the > same, even though it's clear that some of the vocal people are smart. > 2. Even pretending the previous point is a non issue, you're assuming > that what the smartest people decide is good for the masses. This is not > always true. > > The second point is very complex to explain, so I'm trying with an > example. One of the recurring criticism about why Java is too > conservative, or why more modern APIs haven't been developed, is the > constraint about binary retro-compatibility. Managing a breakage in > retro-compatibility is a matter of being good in software development > practices, basically refactoring and testing. It sounds quite obvious to > me that the smartest guys are pretty good in those practices, so it they > called for breaking retro-compatibility, it wouldn't be absurd *in their > perspective*. Unfortunately, 95% of the world doesn't work with best > practices, doesn't test (enough) and fears refactoring like hell. Break > retro-compatibility and you'll have tons of people lag with older Java > versions for years, and when they are forced to switch the up-to-date > Java will be so different from what they're working on that they will > have equal chances to move to something else (not counting those that > will move sooner, angry for the break). Voilà, in a few years this would > turn a mass-language into an elite language. > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/blog > [email protected] - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
