Well the main issue is that it breaks other people's existing libraries and contributions. This stuff trickles down.
As to generics: that's a different topic perhaps.
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:25 PM, Ben Stabile wrote:
> Personally I don't find refactoring a name any problem with modern tools, so
> I would lean towards "VectorGene --> Gene".
> Since I maintain a C# fork, I don't really get a vote. But I'll take this
> opportunity to cast a ballot for moving to generics.
> I know that would be a big job, and I know how you feel about the problems
> in Java. But....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sean Luke
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Speaking of VectorGene
> One item I've long contemplated is renaming VectorGene to just Gene. This
> would be more consistent with the naming scheme of the other vector
> individuals and species, and it'd be less to type.
> I could do one of four things:
> 1. Directly rename VectorGene to Gene and let people start screaming.
> 2. Make Gene be a superclass of VectorGene (which would be empty and
> deprecated). This would require refactoring all references of VectorGene in
> GeneVectorIndividual and GeneVectorSpecies to refer to Gene instead.
> Eventually get rid of VectorGene.
> 3. Make Gene be a (for now) empty subclass of VectorGene and deprecate
> VectorGene. Eventually get rid of VectorGene. I don't know the
> consequences of using a deprecated superclass.
> 4. Keep things as they are and live with it.