My point, in case it's still not clear, is that javac 1.5 adding warnings to existing code by default was a poor decision. Gosling would have been able to kill 1.4 more thoroughly had he ensured (assuming he was in a position to do that) that existing code did not sprout new warnings, at least by default.
If I recall correctly, in the first 1.5 releases there wasn't even a way of turning those warnings off. On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the more accurate answer is the amount of rewrite that would have to > be done. You can turn off the warnings but that is risky. You can go through > the code and put types in everywhere but that is a fair amount of work. I > think the developers were able to handle the new syntax fairly easily. It > was all the rewriting that would ensue and thus all the testing and extra > effort that management would not sign off on. Back to ROI on changing the > code. Very little benefit modifying tons of code to work with generics. And > all for what? So you can add some new feature using generics instead of > having to do it the old 1.4 way? Some of these code bases are huge and > cannot be modified all at once. I'm working on a project that uses 1.6 > thankfully which started 4 years ago. I doubt it will ever move to 1.7 or > 1.8. There are over 100 people writing code every day adding to what would > have to be reviewed and tested should a change to a new Java version ever > happen. > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> What was magical about 1.4.2 over 1.3 or 1.2 that made lots of people >> stop there? (I know some stopped at 1.3 for a while, but not very >> many in comparison) >> >> I think it was simply the 3000 generics warnings their existing code >> gave when compiled with javac 1.5, as mentioned earlier. >> >> One of my old friends moved up to Java 6 only a year ago, from 1.4, >> because it took that long for their developers to become familiar with >> generics. Not because generics are hard, just because they didn't >> make any conscious effort to learn, and the warnings put them off. >> >> Regarding not moving up because the application is no longer being >> maintained, sure, but there are a lot of questions in IRC, etc., from >> people who are working on such systems, i.e., are actually maintaining >> them. >> >> -- >> Skype: ricky_clarkson >> UK phone (forwards to Skype): 0161 408 5260 >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Robert Casto <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Because the platform is changed you end up having to test everything. If >> > you >> > run into problems you now have developers trying to figure them out and >> > get >> > them fixed. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. The only benefit is >> > for >> > the developers. If the application is stable and in maintenance mode, >> > there >> > is NO reason to upgrade to a new version of Java. >> > >> > If the application is evolving, changing, and being added to, then there >> > would be reason to change to a newer version of Java. The developers >> > would >> > get a lot of benefits as would those maintaining the application. Doing >> > new >> > development on 1.4 is ludicrous but I know companies that do it because >> > they >> > just keep adding features and don't want to spend any time on retesting >> > what >> > already works. >> > >> > Remember, it is management that makes these decisions, not the >> > developers. >> > We would be happy to use 1.7 in production right now if we had our way. >> > If >> > 1.8 is on the table and we can get the code, we would even push it into >> > production. But the reality is the developer rarely has any say in what >> > language and which version is going to be used. And steering it one way >> > or >> > another is normally an effort in futility. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Joseph Ottinger >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> People don't care about performance. They want safety. Unless we're >> >> talking automobiles, because people are idiots. >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hmm... >> >> > >> >> > No user benefits like greatly improved JVM performance between 1.4.2 >> >> > and >> >> > 1.6? >> >> > >> >> > On 5/30/2011 10:24 PM, Steven Herod 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 at >> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Joseph B. Ottinger >> >> http://enigmastation.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. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Robert Casto >> > www.robertcasto.com >> > www.sellerstoolbox.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. >> > >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Robert Casto > www.robertcasto.com > www.sellerstoolbox.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. > -- 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.
