Concerns about the plan for `==`

[John Rose]

On 24 Jun 2022, at 8:04, Brian Goetz wrote:

> …
>
> It is a little sad because we had to resolve the problem by using the unfortunate spelling all the time, because `==` got the good name, but that's not a new problem.  But it means the cognitive load can disappear if we train ourselves to uniformly use `.equals()`.
>
> We will surely have about a million calls to make `===` or `eq` or something else sugar for `.equals()`.  We can consider that, but I don't think its essential to do that now.

Well said.  I agree.  The good names are not the important
part of this story.  And we can improve them later; it doesn’t
have to be now.