On 13 May 2017 at 06:29, Raymond DeCampo <r...@decampo.org> wrote: > > > As for the module, do we mind a few more bytes? > > It leaves room for expansion (not that I intend to do it personally), > > and it avoids that "core" becomes the place where we put every little > > thing that does not belong elsewhere. [If it turns out that "core" > > contains only two classes, a question might be whether those should > > not also belong to their own module with a name that better reflects > > its content.] > > > > It's not the "bytes" it's the overhead. Having a module containing only > one class is extreme. >
What I find amusing here is that if there were a standard an easy way to share artefacts containing only a single class file, we'd end up with an npm-style ecosystem where a basic project would require downloading and maintaining dozens or hundreds of dependencies without doing anything particularly special. When it comes down to it, finding a proper point of modularisation is difficult as there are trade offs in maintenance versus purity. Since Java still doesn't have any good way to enforce automatic semantic versioning and simple code isolation (JPMS in Java 9 refuses to address this still which was one of Red Hat's criticisms), we're stuck bundling a bunch of somewhat related code together just for usability purposes. Contract this with the C development world where libraries pride themselves on being distributable as a single source file for simplicity (even though said file is usually thousands of lines long). -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
