Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: no more primitive data types in Java (JDK 10+). What do you think? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: <10684771.266.1334951559916.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbyy7> References: <31946709.2630.1334888553396.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcsy1> <1kjq7upn72ead.dnfbqpmw22at$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1334951560 3446 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2012 19:52:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:52:40 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Received-Bytes: 2593 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13709 glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > While we are in the third millenium and the 21st century, I never > hear anyone say that we are in the 202nd decade. I don't ever > remember anyone saying we were in the 199th, 200th, or 201st > decade, either. I had an argument in 1980 with someone who claimed that 1980 belonged to the 70s, not the 80s. I was responding to an argument that ten belonged in the teens. These are *linguistic* terms, not scientific ones. They mean what society has them mean, and by the party metric, society deemed 2000 as the beginning of the millennium. I agree. It's all by convention. I follow that convention, and I am far from alone. > It seems to me that decades don't count the same way as centuries. > > In addition, with a few year uncertainty in the actual date > that christ [sic] was born, worrying about the difference in millennia > seems a little strange. And unnecessary. The "where's the party?" rule completely resolves the problem. If there's one thing pretty well established, it's that Jesus couldn't have been born on January 1, which was New Year's Day in the pre-Christian era anyway, nor even on December 25. So Christs's birthday has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Zero, like the year that began the millennium count (a.k.a. 1 BC). -- Lew