Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.geek.nz!.POSTED.agency.bbs.geek.nz!not-for-mail
From: Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Calling deprecated methods
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:04:32 +1200
Organization: fsxNet Usenet Gateway | bbs.geek.nz/#fsxNet
Message-ID: <296763448@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net>
References: <1640994863@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: news.bbs.geek.nz; posting-host="M6YmRdZYyc42DJk0lNlt/X4dpP4dzvceBNabSmESN3E"; logging-data="1013"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.bbs.geek.nz"
User-Agent: VSoup v1.2.9.47Beta [95/NT]
X-Comment-To: Eric Sosman
X-MailConverter: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:37840

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:41:40 -0500, Eric Sosman wrote:

>      Bear in mind that Java 9 was originally scheduled for 2016,
> then postponed to 2017 Spring, then 2017 Summer, and finally to 2017
> Autumn, more than a year later than planned.[*]
>
Then they had plenty of time to get it right, didn't they.

> Resistance to the Project Jigsaw changes can be blamed for only part of
> the delay;
>
Sure, but I wasn't really taking aim at Oracle: I have little doubt that
they'll have reasonable regression test coverage and will maintain that
regression test suite.

In the past I've seen far too many sets of local library support functions that
 had no documentation, test harnesses or regression test data and was
suggesting that devs in general should not go there.

This was common in the past when we didn't know any better, but now we do.
However, it wouldn't surprise me that many PHBs (who are probably MBAs) still
consider test harnesses and regression testing to be a waste
of time.

> [*] A colleague once explained his method for making sense of
> software project time estimates.  An estimate always consists of two
> parts: A quantity and a time unit, like "two weeks" or "six months."  My
> colleague would start by doubling the quantity, then continue by bumping
> the time unit up by one step.  Thus, the examples above would be
> understood as "four months" and "twelve years."  ;)
>
... good to see there are no cynics round here.


--
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie
          | dot org