Any effort is effort. Any change is risk and any crappy software, once it reaches a steady state, can live forever.
I can assure you, in the corporate world I've worked in, between a hostile operations team (who don't want change) and an indifferent business owner (who dislikes the app or has no money), the benefits don't outweigh the risks/cost on any basis. On May 31, 1:44 pm, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > You may be overstating the effort/cash required, and understating the > benefits. > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Steven Herod <[email protected]> wrote: > > The opposition to moving beyond 1.4.x would be mainly the cost. > > > You have a working application which is stable, you are expending > > minimal effort maintaining, and suddenly someone is proposing you > > spend effort/cash to give developers a warm fuzzy feeling and the end > > user no actual visible benefit. > > > Hard to justify. Easier to wait until the app is retired. > > > On May 30, 9:57 pm, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The semantics are pretty clear, as you get compile errors when you get > >> things wrong. > > >> Java developers *were* used to unsafe casts. I'm regularly in ##java > >> on freenode IRC and see fewer and fewer people trying to use untyped > >> collections. It still happens, though mainly by accident. > > >> I've seen some new Java code using untyped Vectors and Hashtables > >> recently, but a) the [ir]responsible developers just left b) that > >> would have happened no matter what Java had done short of removing > >> Vector and Hashtable. > > >> -- > >> Skype: ricky_clarkson > >> UK phone (forwards to Skype): 0161 408 5260 > > >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> It's quite elegant that in general if I update a dependency and that > >> >> dependency has switched from raw types to generics, I generally have > >> >> nothing to do. With the .NET approach I would have to marshal between > >> >> old and new collection types constantly. > > >> > Yes but at least the semantics would be clear up front right there in > >> > the type-system and you'd avoid various pitfalls (Java developers are > >> > used to unsafe casts and unsafe array variance) as well as pave the > >> > way for a deprecation/migration strategy. Sometimes something must die > >> > in order to leave the way for something new, or all we get are zombies. > > >> > -- > >> > 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 > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- 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.
