Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.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 12:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 36 Message-ID: <28348871.855.1334951326848.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pboo1> 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 1334952185 9934 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2012 20:03:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:03:05 +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 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13712 Peter Duniho wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:17:52 -0700, Lew wrote: > > > Peter Duniho wrote: > >> Lew wrote: > >> > >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: > >>>> This is the teens of the 21st century after all. > >>> > >>> Quibble: Not until next year. > >> > >> Yeah, but you have to take into account the kind of people who insisted > >> that the new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000. :) The concept of "teens" > >> may be more, um...flexible to some people than to others. > > > > But it did, by popular acclaim. There is no "real" millennium other than the > > day after whenever it was hardest to get New Year's Eve hotel reservations at > > Times Square. [...] > > You would be correct, except you're not. If I thought the people making > the mistake I'm talking about actually understood the point you're making, > and were just arbitrarily reassigning the term "millennium", you'd have a > point. > > But they don't. They are specifically looking at the count of years and > falsely imagine that on Jan 1, 2000, two sets of 1000-year intervals have > passed. Two sets of 1000-year intervals *have* passed. Since the year zero. Defined as 1000 years prior to when people first reacted to "the millennium". You go on and miss the party, Peter. I'll have fun there without you. -- Lew