decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
And thats how you get from 1.01 to Java 7 update 4 | 342 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And thats how you get from 1.01 to Java 7 update 4
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Nonsense.

There are programs written in Perl in 1990 that still work without any change.
There have been huge changes in the Perl language in those 20 years, but they
have generally (not always but with only very small exceptional end cases) been
designed to add new capabilities without breaking any of the old ones. Any Perl
programmer who was competent and familiar with the modern Perl idioms and usage
would generally find lots of "bad practice" to complain about in the
old code - but it still runs and the only reason for re-writing it to match the
current language norms would be to make it easier to maintain or extend, not to
make it work again.

I can't say whether the Java API was a good or bad one - I've never written or
maintained Java code, so I don't know whether the subsquent releases of Java API
broke the original interfaces, but if they did that says something about whether
the Java API was well designed, it does not prove whether there is such a thing
as a good API.

John Macdonald

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
A good proportion of that is fixing the bugs found in V1 and not fixed until
V6.1

Extending the language brings its own set of bugs that need fixing.

On a slightly related matter, the number of 'fixes' being released for .Net V4
is simply silly. It must be the most buggy bit of software ever released by
Redmond and that is saying something.

Complex_Number not logged in, sitting in a Cafe by the beach about to enjoy the
Sunset in San Diego.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )