jdk

. Even if he didn't have the terminology to express the difference between subtype polymorphism and parametric polymorphism, five years is plenty of time to gain an intuitive understanding of how generics are a form of polymorphism. His advice around prefering polymorphism (and, therefore, inheritance, and, therefore, a proliferation of classes) over switch statements and enums was probably wrong-headed at the time, and today it's just plain wrong. ADTs and pattern matching have clearly won that fight, and even Java has them now. Speaking of proliferation of classes, the book pays lip service to the idea of avoiding side-effects, but then the concrete advice consistently advocates turning stateless functions into stateful objects for the sake of avoiding imagined problems. One particular bugbear of mine is that I've had literally dozens of discussions over the years caused by his advice that comments are always failures to express yourself in code. Many people accept that as fact from reading it first hand, others you can clearly trace the brain rot back to the book through a series of intermediaries. This has the effrt of giving you programmers who don't understand that high-level strategy comments ("I'm implementing algorithm X") are incredibly information dense, where one single line informs how I should interpret the whole function. Honestly, the list goes on. There's a few nuggest of wisdom buried in all the nonsense, but it's just plain hard to tell people "read this chapter, but not that, and ignore these sections of the chapter you should read". Might as well just advise against juniors reading the book at all, and only visiting it when they've had the time to learn enough that they can cut through the bullshit themselves. (At which point it's just of dubious value instead of an outright negative) 0. https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/sha...

tribution. They made heavy use of this because a lot of their internals were in .xpi formats (which is also a .zip file) but they recently dropped it because Firefox gonna Firefox^W double down on some random shit other than making a sane browser

a method gets called a lot, it may get optimized more, and start using a different implementation)

oint is the norm and such alternative would be wholly unreasonable.) > The wonderful thing about choosing not to care about facts is having whatever opinions you want. I appreciate the irony of you making such statement, proudly thinking that your opinion equals fact, and therefore any other opinion is not. This discussion is nothing but subjective opinion vs. subjective opinion. Facts are (hopefully, as I can only speak for myself) inputs to both our opinions, but no opinion about "good" or "bad", "nasty" or not can ever be objective. Objective code quality does not exist.