3 ms·

At least the bugs are documented. Ruby bugs just are, theres nothing confirming them. Java bugs need to stay there because if they were fixed then it would be

• mbell 12y ago
  That attitude is exactly why I have no interest in working with Java.
  • mindcrime 12y ago
    Wait, you're saying you'd prefer undocumented bugs and a constant stream of breaking changes to the runtime that force you to constantly port and report existing, working code? I don't get it... the Java way seems pretty right to me. That said, I will allow that they might have been a little bit too rigid about not allowing breaking changes. At the very least this policy has resulted in Java evolving more slowly than it might have otherwise. But I don't necessarily find that to be unacceptable, all things told.
    • mbell 12y ago
      I prefer that bugs get fixed when found. In my experience the Java way is 'oh, a bug, well, that's a bug defined in the spec so we can't fix it now, we'll make a note for the next version'...5 years pass. The 'I don't want to touch working code' argument is another strange Javaism. If you expect your code to not rot your going to have to constantly maintain it anyway.
      • gear54rus 12y ago
        And sadly, it seems the same with JS. Year 2015: x = null; typeof x; //object x.a = 1; //TypeError: x is null