Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #22121

Re: refactoring problem

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:04:11 -0600, Joshua Cranmer
<Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/4/2013 2:35 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Silvio wrote:
>>> parameters. Nothing very dramatic that could not be added to the
>>> Java compiler if so desired.
>>
>> People are never satisfied. They wanted delegates, didn't get them,
>> never mind Java got another way to do the same thing. Then they
>> wanted generics, and sorta got them. Then they wanted runtime
>> generics and didn't get them, never mind Java already had another way
>> to do the same thing. Then they wanted closures, and sorta got them,
>> never mind Java already had another way to do the same thing. Now
>> they want tuples, never mind that Java already has another way to do
>> the same thing.
>>
>> "Oh, it's just one more little thing!" they always exclaim. For 
>> thousand little things.
>>
>> This is what happened to C++.

     AFAIAC, it is what happened to Java.

>> Java will get all these things and the programming community will
>> abandon the language, bitching that it's gotten too "heavy".

     It already is.  It is a maze.

>For what it's worth, I would say the biggest mistake that Java made was 
>in the exclusion of unsigned integer types, or, most perniciously, the 
>decision to make the byte datatype be signed. That doesn't necessarily 
>mean I would want to see it changed at this point, however.

     I did not like that either.  On my degree, I had to write some
networking code in Java.  Because of no unsigned integers, I had to do
a song and dance to handle IP address conversion.

>Java is its own programming language, and the fact that you can't 
>program in it like you can in $LANGUAGE should be considered a feature, 
>not a bug.

     Depending on what it is, it might be a feature, but it might be a
bug.

>> The argument "it's just one little change" is a well-known lie. It's
>> how customers eat up the profit margin for custom software. One thing
>> and another and another and another and another and the game is how
>> long you can say, "I'm only just going to take Poland, nothing else"
>> before people realize I just incurred Godwin's Law.

     No, it is not a lie for each case, but the end result of just one
more repeated many times is worse than if all of the items were dealt
with at once.

>I think it might be worth filtering out feature requests by asking
>requestors to list at least one drawback of including their feature. If 
>they can't think of any, then they are going to be totally clueless 
>about how easy or hard a feature is to implement.

     That is too easy.  Make it at least three drawbacks.

     And then, there is the question, "How have you managed to survive
without this feature you are asking for?  Why not just keep doing
that?"  That might shake out a good use case for the proposed feature.
Or show that the feature is not worth the trouble.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

refactoring problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-02-03 06:30 -0800
  Re: refactoring problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-02-03 16:23 +0000
  Re: refactoring problem Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-02-03 12:27 -0400
    Re: refactoring problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-02-03 12:35 -0800
      Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 15:37 -0500
    Re: refactoring problem Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 -0600
      Re: refactoring problem Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-02-03 17:38 -0400
      Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 16:46 -0500
    Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-03 14:36 -0800
  Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 11:34 -0500
  Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:54 -0600
    Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 13:13 -0500
      Re: refactoring problem Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-02-03 10:20 -0800
        Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-03 13:32 -0500
          Re: refactoring problem Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-02-03 10:50 -0800
            Re: refactoring problem Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-02-03 21:38 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-02-04 08:11 +0000
              Re: refactoring problem Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-02-04 03:56 -0800
      Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 13:21 +0100
        Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 12:35 -0800
          Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 22:15 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 13:49 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 23:51 +0100
            Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 13:53 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-04 23:48 +0100
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-04 17:08 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2013-02-05 10:07 +0100
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:13 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:20 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-02-05 13:31 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-05 21:42 -0500
            Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-04 18:33 -0500
          Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-04 18:32 -0500
            Re: refactoring problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-02-05 01:50 +0000
          Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-05 10:04 -0600
            Re: refactoring problem Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-02-05 10:38 -0800
              Re: refactoring problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-02-05 13:53 -0600
            Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-05 21:43 -0500
              Re: refactoring problem markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-05 19:15 -0800
                Re: refactoring problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-08 23:58 -0500
  Re: refactoring problem Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-02-05 11:09 +0100

csiph-web