Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters

[Rémi Forax]

Alex Buckley a écrit :
> Rémi Forax wrote:
>>> Is it conceivable to drop raw types and hence migration 
>>> compatibility? Sure. Is it an upgrade in behavior? Let's ask people 
>>> still on 1.4 who use raw types. They may have something to say about 
>>> the increased costs you'd impose on them when they try to upgrade 
>>> their codebase.
>>
>> First we talk about source compatibility, not binary one.
>
> I'm not sure why you're bringing in binary compatibility. 

Just because I think that source compatibility is less important that 
binary compatibility.
Or even worse, I think that sometime you have to create 
incompatibilities to teach user
to not do things that are harmful.

> Someone on 1.4 (yes, or 1.3.1, very good) who wants to migrate to 1.7 
> for source feature X will be displeased to discover they can only get 
> as far as -source 1.6 because Remi cut an infinite number of raw types 
> out of 1.7.

So they will update all the files that use raw types, discover some 
hidden bugs during the process,
and if they have dependencies with a pre-1.5 libraries that was not 
generified since,
they will create clean bridge code and only this code will be compiled 
with -source 1.6

In the same time, Remi will be able to remove a two hours course that 
answer the following questions :
  what is a raw type ?
  where to use raw type ?
  where to not use them ?
  what are the rules when you inherits from a raw type,
    overrides a method that use raw type ?
  what is rare type ?
  why getClass()/.class produce raw type ?
  etc.
And replace it by a 10 minutes explanation on how to call legacy codes.

I just hate raw types because they are hard to understand for average 
developers.

>
>> Third, Are you one of the guys that decide that if you want to use 
>> module
>> you need to change the layout of the directories of the sources ?
>
> FUD. You don't NEED to change the layout. 
Sorry, the FUD wasn't intentional.
I am happy that this is not a requirement.
> There is a particular scenario involving simultaneous compilation of 
> multiple source modules that cannot reasonably be achieved without a 
> new layout. But it's off-topic.
>
> Alex

Rémi