To Paraphrase: *Don't bother fixing the language, just offload even more burdens onto the tooling. Any other attitude is "Ivory Tower" material*
I couldn't disagree more. This is the sort of thinking that, IMO, resulted in the monstrosity we knew and hated as legacy J2EE, the abuse of SAM types in the swing library, the Calendar class, and the need for generic parameter folding in IntelliJ. Piling yet more levels of over-engineering on a crumbling foundation is no solution. Every now and again, the only sane practice is to have a proper spring clean and simply take out the trash. That can't happen until we have versioned modules, just in case there are folk out there who actually still *want* some of that trash... On 19 July 2012 15:51, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/19/2012 9:38 AM, Kevin Wright wrote: > > The loss of Jigsaw is massive and significant. Having modules, especially > versioned modules, is what will allow the language to evolve. > > Sure, it would lead to smaller runtimes, but also to cleaning up classes > where more than half the methods are deprecated. It would allow type > signatures to be changed. It would allow Java to (finally!) drop some of > the baggage that it's been carrying around since before V1.0 > > I don't see dropping baggage, including methods as relevant. This is > "ivory tower" material. It has very, very little impact on the real world > -- unless one just can't deal with the fact that the real world is not an > ivory tower. The only thing I believe really should be done here is > treatment of @Deprecated (or a new @Obsolete) annotation in Javadoc to hide > all such methods/classes by default -- and to have IDEs do the same. > That's it -- just hide the cruft by default and you can easily forget it's > there (unless you're unreasonably anal even for a software developer). > > Having a simple, easy-to-use, integrated modularity solution is relevant > to everyone who hasn't crossed the OSGi chasm. Actually, having modularity > integrated at the compiler level is relevant to everyone who doesn't need > hotswapping of modules or juggling multiple versions of the same module in > the same JVM (really in the same classloader, as one can certainly have > multiple versions across web apps in the same JVM without OSGi or any such, > for instance). > > -- > Jess Holle > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
