ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gintautas Grigelionis <>
Subject Re: Mass changes to various projects under Ant umbrella - should we be doing it?
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:57:54 GMT
2018-04-08 16:13 GMT+00:00 Stefan Bodewig <>:

> 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".


> > 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.


> 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".


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message