Re: The curse of constant fields
- From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:29:33 -0800
Juha Laiho wrote:
I got recently bitten by something I consider to be a rather nasty....
feature in the Java language, and decided to write up about it.
I had to do a couple of simple changes to a relatively shaky and
not-so-testable codebase, so I chose to do the absolute minimum
required: change initialization values for a couple of String fields
in a class, compile the changed class, and run the code manually to
observe that I had achieved the desired change.
You have my sympathy for your frustration, but I would call this story
"The curse of manual builds".
Back in the 1970's, long before Java was invented, I worked on a large
project that avoided reassembling all the code by having a team of
programmer techs who constructed the list of modules that needed to be
assembled due to each change. The programmer techs did their best, but
it was a *very* error prone procedure.
Since then, I have seen complaints, for several languages, of the form
"I did a manual build, and got into trouble due to [some aspect of the
programming language or environment]".
I am convinced that the only viable choices are rebuilding everything
for every change or using language-appropriate automatic dependency
analysis.
Patricia
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The curse of constant fields
- From: Juha Laiho
- Re: The curse of constant fields
- From: Arne Vajhøj
- Re: The curse of constant fields
- References:
- The curse of constant fields
- From: Juha Laiho
- The curse of constant fields
- Prev by Date: Re: XML parsing with Java
- Next by Date: Re: The curse of constant fields
- Previous by thread: The curse of constant fields
- Next by thread: Re: The curse of constant fields
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|