3 ms·
your scenario isn't all that different from how the jdk authors view the use of internal classes, like sun.misc.unsafe.
by hnbroseph 6y ago
your scenario isn't all that different from how the jdk authors view the use of internal classes, like sun.misc.unsafe.
- lolc 6y agoHere's what Oracle says[0]: "Technically, nothing prevents your program from calling into sun.* by name." And I don't think I ever accessed sun.* when writing Java. So the example seems both ill-suited and far-fetched to me. One of the first things I did in Elm was writing a tiny JS snippet to get a missing piece from the browser. It was something I needed and my site wouldn't have worked without it. I later switched to the Elm implementation once that became available. Now given the stated goals of the Elm project, I will be unable to repeat this. Which means I expect I'd be stuck if I again wanted to access the browser API before the Elm people got around to implement that part. And that wholly changes my view of the project. I'm using Elm for a toy project. If I'm blocked, I go do something else. What a pity though. [0] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/faq-sun-packages.html https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/faq-sun-packages.ht...