Hi Matthieu, > I'm very happy having people to give their opinions, it means, to me, > we have some kind of community.
Yes, I agree. It must remain respectful and cordial, though. I hope I was able to do that. >> I totally agree with the point: one should not confuse “complex” with >> “familiar”. I suppose the only thing I don’t agree with in this >> sentence is the choice of character ( ` ) for a quote. That goes >> against everything I have ever learned, and is forbidden by my >> religion. > > You are right, it's just lazyness because I changed from an AZERTY > keyboard to a QWERTY one and back-quote is simpler to type. I won't do > that in the future. Hahahaha. Just to be sure: that was my attempt at humour to try to lighten the situation because I didn’t know how you would react to my critique. (Don’t worry, my wife never laughs at my jokes, either.) But your reply was even funnier to me because I completely understand. 😂 > And so on. And not adopting any new thing basically makes a obsolete > and/or dead project. You make some good points, but just to be very clear: I am not against things that are “new”. I am *only* against unnecessary complexity. >> (Actually, if somebody really hates Java that much, if the entire >> code base were changed to a different language, like Scala, perhaps >> THAT could be a good thing!) > > But no software of this size can be shifted overnight to another > language. I agree. I am only trying to reiterate that I have a particular compulsion to try to reduce complexity. I think I have been traumatized too much in the past. 😫 > I can list here some things that we really benefits from adopting > Scala: Thanks for the explanation. Again, I stand by my point emphasizing the word *unnecessary*. If an analysis was done and the addition of Scala in the way it was done was deemed to be necessary, then so be it. I don’t know enough about the project or its history to second guess the decision. Cheers, =David
