Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jan Burse Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java 7 vs 8 speed issues on Win7? Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:21:05 +0100 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.albasani.net JeA5KxtTTx1tnMM9WCtDPHT6Fdg+7Ls/GKJsrhXPrKdd07RDDoDb+H4gkHyp9c+XQiuGih1oV3T6GhUl8tdXqw== NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="EqUo2mSVEhPl68o1+ijlMlZkKGrMgcOUBIj25UXWuEdoC3hvvbODtSGrpRNXm4AOWYMlJoDFRMiHG9jEhB7AptUxmHI7XSOaJJM3O+UOZFEI7itWCsbaC/sp4dIHGcVD"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0 SeaMonkey/2.30 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:o67tTkrCwF76YRQ4IT9qU1JQgVc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:30295 Eric Sosman schrieb: > > If there's any such thing as an "internal contract," this is > the first I've heard of it. You're welcome. I give you an example of internal contracts from real world. Assume you are employed by an employer and sign a job contract. This is actually an internal contract, it might contain matters that are not supposed to be seen outside of the company, or it might contain matters that you personally wouldn't like to be seen everywhere, for example the salary figure. It similar with a class. The modifiers private, package local /* omission of a modifier */, public, protected are just contract modifiers, defining how internal and how external the interface is. > I'm > not denying that the supposedly-invisible internals sometimes make > themselves apparent and present problems or opportunities; I'm just > resisting the attempt to refer to such things as part of a "contract" > or to call them "semantics." Call it potato. I don't care how you call it. Some other software has a tool called nitpick. Maybe they add a tool called sosman in the future. > Thought experiment: If the next JVM patch improves the JIT so > sparse `switch' blocks on `char' values are compiled more efficiently, > is that a change in the "semantics" of `switch'? Yes its a bigger potato than before. The potato has changed. For example the compiler will accept certain programs which he didn't accept before. And this acceptance is not on grounds of syntax, but on grounds of allowed types in the switch argument. So if you accept that types are closer to semantics, sorry potatos, than well you might also accepts that this switch change concerns potatos. But to be frankly, I don't care a bit whether you accept this view. Since as long as there is no tool named after your name, you are anyway not authorative. But there are chances that a tool is named after you. Since you are asking the right questions about semantics, oh sorry potatos. Bye