Perhaps I think differently to most, but I believe having fewer rules to follow when reading and writing code is better than having more. It might not make much difference in this case but I think it's a reasonable criterium when adding language features.
Also, bear in mind there is the possibility post-Java 8 of static defenders (final defenders too?), and you might like to be able to see those at a glance instead of having the word 'static' and 'default' separated by the whole method signature. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Simon Ochsenreither < simon.ochsenreit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure that this is a reasonable explanation. I don't believe that > the designers of one of the most popular language on this planet think that > saving the compiler/IDE implementors a few hours¹ is a more important than > their actual users, which have to deal with that particular choice for the > rest of Java's life. > > ¹ Compared to the actual changes required for default methods, the idea > that they try to save time on the grammar is pretty ... weird. Implementing > the grammar addition took me less than 20 minutes, so I don't think that > people who deal with this daily will have any issues with it. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/LDeCrAVNoWAJ. > > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
