2 ms·
By that logic, literally anything Red Hat does is intrinsically bad. I did misspeak: I'll happily believe there is some politics, but that's not what I meant to
by lvh 9y ago
By that logic, literally anything Red Hat does is intrinsically bad. I did misspeak: I'll happily believe there is some politics, but that's not what I meant to say; the claim elsewhere is that it's purely or primarily politics.
I've already argued that simply reducing it to "it's politics" is not a reasonable argument unless you can also explain why the RH technical detail post is really just a bunch of politics and not technical arguments, and if you can explain why all of these organizations that don't own a module system _also_ voted against.
- specialist 9y ago"anything Red Hat does is intrinsically bad" Not at all. I'm saying that politics is normal and good. I want RedHat, IBM, Oracle, etc to fight it out. Legally. -- Before replying, I took a step back, wondering what my position is. Here it is: This modules effort feels like generics. JDK 1.5 adopted the least objectionable, and therefore least useful, design for generics. The rationalization was "backward compatibility", then and now. The correct answer was to retool the JVM and JDK as needed to do generics properly. IMHO, Java has leaned too far towards backward compatibility. But what do I know? Java continues to do quite well, despite my objections.
- codetojoy 9y agore: feels like generics. Quite right. From Spec Lead, Mark Reinhold: https://youtu.be/fxB9cVNcyZo?t=41m50s https://youtu.be/fxB9cVNcyZo?t=41m50s