2018-04-08 16:13 GMT+00:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>: > On 2018-04-07, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote: > > > Java is a language with the syntax that changes and tries to accomodate > new > > patterns that make programming more efficient. > > Some of the patterns you've been changign don't fall into this category > for me. Switching if/else blocks, colapsing ifs or removing parens from > longer boolean expressions because you happend to remember && binds > stronger than || is not something that makes reading and understanding > the code more efficient IMHO > > Code is read far more often than written - this is probably even more > true for open source code. If we wanted to optimize then my vote would > go to optimize for readablity and clarity. I'm not saying the existing > code is readable. Readability certainly is highly subjective, as is > "efficient programming". >
Agreed. > > We should try to use these patterns everywhere because uniformity aids > > comprehension. > > Here we have to agree that we disagree. Small diffs are more important > than uniformity to me. > Agreed. > Old code is not a golden code, it's a rotten code. > > Now it is my turn to feel offended. Our old code certainly is not > golden. I certainly have written (and every day write) bad code, but > I've never written rotten code. > Sorry for the slip. > I don't believe woking well tested code rots. Code rot is something that > happends when code doesn't get adapted to changing environments or > requirements. This is not the case here. I wrote earlier that I was about to review the unit tests. I was particularly unhappy about the root-property hack for an ancient deficiency in Surefire. I consider my previous commits a sort of a groundwork for refactorisation of JUnit tests. Would you bear with me if I commit the changes to the tests? Given the previous discussion, I would accept a "no". Gintas
