<div dir="auto"><div>Touche. This class is strictly IO focused, and basic IO at that. And even within that, the bar should be extremely high for what goes in this class.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But let me ask -- if many things meet that bar, do you feel there should be a limit for how many enter the class?</div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 9:41 AM Brian Goetz <<a href="mailto:brian.goetz@oracle.com">brian.goetz@oracle.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Agree this is a better name. <br>
<br>
As to the "bucket of what" question, we had a very deliberate target
in mind: we did *not* want this to become the catch-all "statically
imported" bucket (which would rapidly become an attractive
nuisance), so we chose a targeted name to make it clear that this
was about a narrow set of things that are useful to the specific
situation of IO from simple programs. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">SystemIO is the best suggestion thus far. If you
ever do add anything to this class, you don't tie yourself down
to the beginner-like name. If one day a useful primitive comes
to light that is not so Simple, this class might still be the
best place to put it. Really, this class is at it's best when
it's a bucket of useful primitives, especially ones that
complement each other. Not opening the can of worms for "what",
as we've gone fairly off topic from the original threads intent.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 3:47 AM
Stephen Colebourne <<a href="mailto:scolebourne@joda.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">scolebourne@joda.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I
do agree that "Simple" isn't the best prefix here, and "Basic"
is a<br>
bit better,<br>
<br>
But I personally prefer SystemIO, as it<br>
(a) links the concept to the existing System class, which they
will<br>
likely see or have seen by Googling<br>
(b) introduces the concept of the "system" that the code is
running on<br>
<br>
ie. I think "System" is a better on-ramp name as it actually
leads to<br>
the "real thing"<br>
<br>
Yours bikeshedderly,<br>
Stephen<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 21:01, Brian Goetz <<a href="mailto:brian.goetz@oracle.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">brian.goetz@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> I was all ready to dismiss this as just bikeshedding, but
your clever up-front disclaimer convinced me to hang with you
:)<br>
><br>
> I think what you are saying here is that we've set a trap
for ourselves by claiming the word "simple", which, as we've
seen, is subject to "everyone interprets it in a way to
support their own preference." Fair point; naming matters,
especially when setting direction.<br>
><br>
> I am not as optimistic as you that if we called this
"BasicIO", whether we wouldn't get the same arguments, but
your point is taken: the goal here is not simplicity, it is
about putting in place some very basic IO primitives which can
be built upon, which do not depend on either other library
abstractions (Scanner, Console, StringTokenizer), which are
reasonably symmetric with respect to input and output, and
which do not require explanation of static fields in order to
use for the first time.<br>
><br>
> These characteristics serve both students and "scripts",
in that they address the most basic console IO needs without
ancillary abstractions.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2/20/2024 12:39 PM, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I acknowledge the following is easy to dismiss as just
bikeshedding, but please hang with me:<br>
><br>
> Is labeling something as "simple" an effective naming
practice, especially in a pedagogical context like we are
faced with in this JEP?<br>
><br>
>> simple: adjective<br>
>> 1. easily understood or done; presenting no
difficulty.<br>
>> "a simple solution"<br>
><br>
><br>
> First, let me be bold and claim that nothing in
programming is "easily understood or done; presenting no
difficulty". Anyone claiming so has clearly lost empathy with
the beginning learner! ;-)<br>
><br>
> Second, the lable "simple" suggest something about the
things not fitting into the "simple" bucket. If not simple,
what are those things? Difficult?<br>
><br>
> Third, "easily understood" very much depends on who is
trying to understand. It may change over time as the learner
gains understanding and experience. Simple to Alice might not
be simple to Bob.<br>
><br>
> ...<br>
><br>
> As any complainer, I'm also too lazy to do the work to
find a better alternative. But perhaps "basic" could be a
starting point:<br>
><br>
>> basic: adjective<br>
>> 1. forming an essential foundation or starting point;
fundamental.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This seems more stable to time, context and experience.
Something fundamental can be trusted to stay fundamental for a
while.<br>
><br>
> Thanks (any sorry!),<br>
> Eirik.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>