Sounds like a long shot reasoning: java.util.ArrayList has been tested
by millions of folks, chances of finding a bug in any of the core Java
collections are slim to naught. Conversely, a bug in a new
implementation is more likely to happen, especially if it has been
tested by only a couple of hundred folks.
I'm referring to bugs in app code, not collection code.
- Code independence. We designed these classes as replacements for
the JDK
collections. It seems backwards to require them as a dependency.
You already require Java for running Pivot. It seems backwards to
introduce something that is readily available on both sides of the
line, and are already used in any other library, and developers code.
There's more to it than that. See "Why does Pivot include its own
collection classes?" in the FAQ:
http://cwiki.apache.org/PIVOT/frequently-asked-questions-faq.html
Honestly, I'm getting a little sick of having to justify why we wrote
our own collections. They are an integral part of the platform and we
want the most optimized implementation we can get. The JDK collections
just don't cut it for our use cases. I don't hear anyone complaining
that the Groovy and Scala guys, for example, defined their own
collections (presumably for similar reasons). Why is it such a big
deal for Pivot to do so?
