> > > I must say though: > > "We are so happy with the quality and stability of Log4j 2, we are > convinced it is a fantastic replacement for Log4j 1." > > That's clearly a lie. You wouldn't say these things if you were really > happy and really convinced it'd be a replacement. That is make believe. In > that case you'd say something like >
easy there. that's pretty harsh treatment of other list participants, and presumptuous to state you know what someone else is thinking/feeling. I'm kinda wondering what kind of personal goals of interests you have in > pushing this version evolution so much? When you see that half the world, > so to speak, still uses version 1.x. But it's like you have an ulterior > motive, such as e.g. an employer that wants it, or a certain subsection of > what you work with who would want that. Or some bragging rights, I don't > know. keeping an employer happy is not an ulterior motive. People like to be able to pay their bills. I would ensure that the old java versions still have a place. It would be a > rotten place if some old server that can't be upgraded by you or anyone > wouldn't be able to run Log4j and you are also closing the gap between the > existing user base that is maybe 80-90% version 1, and the ever widening or > departing version 2 that gets further and further away from that old Java > 1.5. And what reasons do you have to go for java 7 and 8? Probably not all > that important except that it is a selling point of some thing for some > people. A library must be conservative. > agreed. but let's be objective about what life is like in the "obsolete server" space: you aren't typically deploying radically new code there that introduces new logging dependencies, either! log4j2 requires java 6, I have a few boxes that don't support that, but very few. I condider java having gone in bad directions anyway starting with 1.5. All > of the designs are ugly in my mind and to my perception and opinion. > > I love the old java but all of the new things continuously make the code > more hideous and I believe harder to maintain. Just look at all the > annotations for the plugins and all. It is very hard to read and quite > complex or complicated the way I see it. > I see a lot of stuff in Java 7 and 8 that I don't understand (yet), but that doesn't make me say "java 8 is a step backward"; usually I have (and exercise) the option to ignore changes that I don't yet see the value of. I could keep writing what I've always written, and appreciate the fact that I am getting security updates. > > Generics are hard and hardly readable. @Override annotations hardly have > any use. And become 'invalid' once the code compiles correctly the first > times. Superfluous. I don't know much about it, much else. I just think the > code is getting uglier and uglier that I see around. > > Enums are also not that great and suffer from some serious design flaws. > The move from arrays to Collection classes is too great and you are often > left to choose completely between two competing paradigms in the same code. > Do I use enums and collections? Or do I use indexes and arrays? Do I use > enums with fields to index arrays? . How much slower is my code going to be > if a switch statement requires a method call and an array lookup? . Where > is the pristine quality of using bitsets or even java BitSets?. (We still > don't have "struct" types, e.g. pascal had "record" type structures that > caused you to accurately design a form of memory structure that could be > instantiated). Java code is becoming and has become convoluted because > programming essentials are left behind and everything becomes Expensive. > Because of memory alignment there is hardly any use for > non-default-bitwidth integers and the smaller types that exist have no > purpose because they are signed. And everyone must be feeling this, all of > this. You can't program this shit for longer periods if you don't feel what > it does to you. Where's the fun in all of this? There are not even good > (generic) binary tree or whatever tree implementations that you can really > use to store objects in. At least in the default collections. > Most of the stuff that's been added over time has increased my productivity immensely once I've invested the time to master it (this is from the standpoint of someone making a living writing Java since v1.1). For most of the stuff I do, my customer is happier if I stamp the stuff out quickly, rather than agonize over every decision from a performance standpoint (for a lot of stuff, machines are cheaper than programming time). I realize that is not the case, especially on very large systems; adding more hardware there gets expen$ive. > Oh well, just my way of seeing things I guess. I have Java 8 on the > windows machine, 7 on my new debian VPS, but I was seriously planning to > develop and deploy for java 5. > go ahead and just write Java 5 code, compile and run it with 7 or 8, and be happy! -- *NOTICE: Whirlpool Corporation e-mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain proprietary or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use or disclosure of the e-mail by you is unauthorized.*