8 ms·
One good reason to refuse Jigsaw: it's far far too complex. I watched a whole hour and a half presentation on it, and the time was well necessary to explain th
by norswap 9y ago
One good reason to refuse Jigsaw: it's far far too complex.
I watched a whole hour and a half presentation on it, and the time was well necessary to explain the way things work and outline a migration path for existing code.
The worst thing about it: I can't remember much about how it was supposed to work. I just remember that it was highly unintuitive, requiring both explicit imports and exports in specific files for each module.
The fact that it is so tightly coupled to JDK refactoring also gives me pause. Seems like a design overfit. Both concerns should be handled separately.
Sure a module system can help to separate out the JDK libraries, and that's certainly a nice way to check you've achieved your objectives with the design. But when this refactoring itself is one of the major justification for the design, something is wrong.
- vbezhenar 9y agoI'm not sure that IBM and Redhat voted against current Jigsaw implementation because it's complex. It seems that it's not complex enough for them. So if we won't get Jigsaw now, we will likely get more overengineering or not get anything at all.
- norswap 9y agoYou are right, I don't know IBM and Red Hat reasons, but I do not trust them very far on this. Red Hat has a great Java alternative in Ceylon with a module system which seemed far more sensible when I read about it (you should take this observations with a grain of salt and check for yourself, I'm going on hazy memories).