Which Carl? There are several... Don't make me sit you in the comfy chair and poke you with sharp cushions!
On Nov 23, 3:02 pm, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > What! No Monty Python? > > I refuse to back down over this... Carl would never forgive me if I did :) > > On 23 November 2011 13:48, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ** > > I think you'd have been better off keeping the film quotes out of that. > > Either the coffee isn't working (quite probable, it's made from powder by > > a machine) or that was quite confusing. > > ------------------------------ > > *From: * Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > > *Sender: * [email protected] > > *Date: *Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:36:48 +0000 > > *To: *<[email protected]> > > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > > *Subject: *Re: [The Java Posse] Stephen Colebourne on Scala (ouch!) > > > It's a bit more complicated than that... > > > Since the referenced podcast was recorded, the collections framework has > > been steadily aggregating tests and fixes/performance enhancements from the > > community. It's definitely in better shape than it was back then. > > > Also, many of the subtle bugs (so not the stuff you're likely to encounter > > on a day-to-day basis) originate from the pattern matching code. This is > > one of the oldest sections of the compiler code and grew organically long > > before Scala looked like it had the potential to be a commercial success, > > it's also got to be the single largest source of WTFs for anyone working in > > the compiler source. > > > So the directors of the firm hired to continue the pattern matcher after > > the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just > > been > > sacked. A shiny new and fully tested pattern matcher has instead been > > completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last > > minute. [1] > > > In short? Yes, there's some less-than-perfect legacy code in there, as > > with any well established codebase[3]. But it's most definitely improving, > > and the nastiest code is invariably the stuff that has been most widely > > used, so it's had plenty of testing one way or another. > > > [1] Not really[2], it was done lovingly with great care and attention, > > over some period of time. Nobody was sacked. > > [2] But I couldn't resist the quote... > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/crazycredits[4] > > [3] And Scala's old enough that it was written when people still thought > > that embedded XML was a good idea! > > [4] We apologise for the fault in the footnotes. Those responsible > > have been sacked. > > > On 23 November 2011 14:04, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Speaking of which - NO intention whatsoever to start a flame war ! - is > >> it correct about the state of the testing ? > > >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 14:42, phil swenson <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>http://blog.joda.org/2011/11/scala-feels-like-ejb-2-and-other.html -- 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.
