On 24 Jun 2022, at 8:04, Brian Goetz wrote: > … > > It is a little sad because we had to resolve the problem by using the > unfortunate spelling all the time, because `==` got the good name, but that's > not a new problem. But it means the cognitive load can disappear if we train > ourselves to uniformly use `.equals()`. > > We will surely have about a million calls to make `===` or `eq` or something > else sugar for `.equals()`. We can consider that, but I don't think its > essential to do that now.
Well said. I agree. The good names are not the important part of this story. And we can improve them later; it doesn’t have to be now.
