Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: glen herrmannsfeldt 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 16:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <31946709.2630.1334888553396.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcsy1> <1kjq7upn72ead.dnfbqpmw22at$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: H0vc4U5LIRkRHNPyGCs2dA.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: tin/1.9.6-20100522 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.32-5-amd64 (x86_64)) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13703 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:15:35 -0700, Peter Duniho > wrote: (snip) >>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. (snip) > We are the sort of people that insist on getting things right, > things like the new millennium and new century starting 2001-01-01 > (and "millennium" being spelled with two N's, but that is another > battle). To us, neither time period started until a year later than > the 2000ers think. > And yet, and yet, we often start counting at zero which is one > earlier than most do! 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. 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 was born, worrying about the difference in millennia seems a little strange. -- glen