NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:25:06 -0500 From: Leif Roar Moldskred Subject: Re: How to turn off those warning messages during ant build? Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer References: <15429764.10.1333589060953.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbae2> <10168300.3443.1333651355770.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcto7> <4f7e2ee4$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f8772f3$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4f88cddf$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <2514833.715.1334433180928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbckz3> <4f89db2b$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <11514068.659.1334435840909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbtr10> <4f89ec2d$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> User-Agent: tin/2.0.0-20110823 ("Ardenistiel") (UNIX) (Linux/3.0.0-17-generic-pae (i686)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <5cSdnboDpcRf9BfSnZ2dnUVZ7s2dnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:25:06 -0500 Lines: 36 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-FBbO/pWeE9nK3rKRVcLuR+XHn345iNYsWrKBGb5haz8XBktRcFrzu74lry3sI6CuHht6NkORxRf7HJd!DzduDFJkWnsLtM/OHBxCe7BKiRALPitFDQt/3PnA/CFlBaSbLS8RbSen1SAB8b+fUMl3Btnl+8w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3426 Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13552 Arne Vajhøj wrote: > > I gave references (Wikipedia and Fowler) that technical debt is code > that was bad when written. > > Either you use a non standard meaning of technical debt > or you want the original developers to have been able to > foresee the future. I have to say I must agree with Lew's use of the term here. To my ear, it doesn't make sense to exclude issues arising from the datedness of the codebase from the concept "technical debt." Issues such as workarounds for old bugs in compilers or libraries, the use of outmoded software idioms, failure to adhere to today's best practices, roll-your-own implementations of functionality that has since been covered by mature, widely adopted libraries -- once you bring the code back out into the open and blow the dust off it, these all affect the software development in the same way as "ordinary" technical debt. I don't agree with Lew's view that it's necessarily bad software development to let sleeping dogs lie. It comes down to a cost / benefit calculation -- the cost of up-to-dateing a non-trivial software project can be significant and the benefits might not be. It depends on the size and age of the project and on why you're dragging it back into the light. (For particularly large projects, it might not going to be _possible_ to keep the entire project up-to-date with current best-practices and idioms. It'll be like painting a major bridge -- by the time you've painted your way to the far side, it'll be time to start on the near side again.) -- Leif Roar Moldskred