* Collections.min(collection, thisComparator)} instead. Otherwise, use {@code
   * Streams.stream(iterable).min(thisComparator).get()} instead. Note that these alternatives do
   * not guarantee which tied minimum element is returned.
   *
   * @param iterable the iterable whose minimum element is to be determined
   * @throws NoSuchElementException if {@code iterable} is empty

   * instruct Java serialization to use it instead of the originally created object.
   *
   * <p>We have chosen this approach over at least two alternatives:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>We could change the serialization of this class incompatibly. We have reserved the right
   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually

 *
 * // In case bug 12345 happens again we'd rather just die
 * Verify.verify(bill.status() == Status.UNPAID,
 *     "Unexpected bill status: %s", bill.status());
 * }
 *
 * <h3>Comparison to alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> In some cases the differences explained below can be subtle. When it's unclear
 * which approach to use, <b>don't worry</b> too much about it; just pick something that seems

   * Collections.min(collection, thisComparator)} instead. Otherwise, use {@code
   * Streams.stream(iterable).min(thisComparator).get()} instead. Note that these alternatives do
   * not guarantee which tied minimum element is returned.
   *
   * @param iterable the iterable whose minimum element is to be determined
   * @throws NoSuchElementException if {@code iterable} is empty

 *
 * // In case bug 12345 happens again we'd rather just die
 * Verify.verify(bill.status() == Status.UNPAID,
 *     "Unexpected bill status: %s", bill.status());
 * }
 *
 * <h3>Comparison to alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> In some cases the differences explained below can be subtle. When it's unclear
 * which approach to use, <b>don't worry</b> too much about it; just pick something that seems

   * instruct Java serialization to use it instead of the originally created object.
   *
   * <p>We have chosen this approach over at least two alternatives:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>We could change the serialization of this class incompatibly. We have reserved the right
   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually

Voici un petit bout de cette histoire.

## Alternatives { #alternatives }

Je crée des API avec des exigences complexes depuis plusieurs années (Machine Learning, systèmes distribués, jobs asynchrones, bases de données NoSQL, etc), en dirigeant plusieurs équipes de développeurs.

Dans ce cadre, j'ai dû étudier, tester et utiliser de nombreuses alternatives.

 *         .transform(User::getId, directExecutor())
 *         .transform(ActivityService::isLoggedIn, threadPool)
 *         .catching(RpcException.class, e -> false, directExecutor());
 * }
 *
 * <h3>Alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <h4>Frameworks</h4>
 *
 * <p>When chaining together a graph of asynchronous operations, you will often find it easier to

 * which will still appear when iterating over the table's contents in a foreach loop or a call to a
 * null-hostile method like {@link ImmutableTable#copyOf}. For alternatives, please see <a
 * href="https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/NewCollectionTypesExplained#table">the wiki</a>.
 *
 * <p>The allowed row and column keys must be supplied when the table is created. The table always

 * which will still appear when iterating over the table's contents in a foreach loop or a call to a
 * null-hostile method like {@link ImmutableTable#copyOf}. For alternatives, please see <a
 * href="https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/NewCollectionTypesExplained#table">the wiki</a>.
 *
 * <p>The allowed row and column keys must be supplied when the table is created. The table always