3 ms·

Yes let's just throw away 20 years of VM research and optimizations. Dropping some backwards compatibility which impacts performance the most is sensible and I

Yes let's just throw away 20 years of VM research and optimizations. Dropping some backwards compatibility which impacts performance the most is sensible and I wish java would do some of that but this is a long way from killing java. Java runs the world, you will have to work very hard and long to produce the same Ecosystem around something else.

xaduha 10y ago
Who said anything about dropping the VM or infrastructure? JVM is awesome. Java isn't.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
  Well that's just your opinion, I think java is pretty nice with Java8. When you see someone say let's kill Java what does that mean for the JVM? Because Oracle will not say ya cool let's just focus on other languages running on the JVM like kotlin and Scala and drop java all together. Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. I think it's good that we have other implementations that allows the JVM to be pushed further and make Java compete with them, it's a win-win for the languages that run on the JVM and Java itself.
  - xaduha 10y ago
    > Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. Not true. You're running bytecode, not Java. Compiled JVM languages benefit from JVM optimizations all the same. No one will actually 'kill' Java, it's about mindset of the users and companies. Kill Java = Give another JVM language a try. Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      > Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation. Quite true, but from Azul, IBM, HP, Jamaica, Aonix, Excelsior, Gamato,CodenameOne, ... who is interested in replacing Java (the language)?
      - xaduha 10y ago
        First, JVM vendors have to conform to specifications, that's all. And introduction of invokedynamic and other stuff that makes it easier for other JVM languages to exist obviously means that they aren't against the idea. All in all I'm for interoperation. "And", not "or". No one is forcing you to rewrite existing Java code.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        My point is that Java is to the JVM, just like C is to UNIX, JavaScript to the browsers, VB/C#/F#/C++ to .NET, Swift/Objective-C to iOS, ... Sure you can have other languages running there, but unless their is first tier support for those languages, most customers won't care and will only allow for first tier programming languages.
    - TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
      If we take Scala for example that's only true if you write Java-like Scala code and what's the point of that? Once you go deep with Scala magic it goes downhill, but prob. 80% as fast. I think Java and other JVM languages can co-exist nicely, depending on the task at hand, there is no "need" to kill anything, I wish you could mix and match code from different JVM languages easily.
      - xaduha 10y ago
        Kotlin solves what Scala didn't. Great Java interop, first class IDE support, easier to get into. Whichever way you look at it Kotlin code is nicer than Java, even if written Java-like.

xaduha 10y ago

Who said anything about dropping the VM or infrastructure? JVM is awesome. Java isn't.

TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
Well that's just your opinion, I think java is pretty nice with Java8. When you see someone say let's kill Java what does that mean for the JVM? Because Oracle will not say ya cool let's just focus on other languages running on the JVM like kotlin and Scala and drop java all together. Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. I think it's good that we have other implementations that allows the JVM to be pushed further and make Java compete with them, it's a win-win for the languages that run on the JVM and Java itself.
- xaduha 10y ago
  > Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. Not true. You're running bytecode, not Java. Compiled JVM languages benefit from JVM optimizations all the same. No one will actually 'kill' Java, it's about mindset of the users and companies. Kill Java = Give another JVM language a try. Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation. Quite true, but from Azul, IBM, HP, Jamaica, Aonix, Excelsior, Gamato,CodenameOne, ... who is interested in replacing Java (the language)?
    - xaduha 10y ago
      First, JVM vendors have to conform to specifications, that's all. And introduction of invokedynamic and other stuff that makes it easier for other JVM languages to exist obviously means that they aren't against the idea. All in all I'm for interoperation. "And", not "or". No one is forcing you to rewrite existing Java code.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        My point is that Java is to the JVM, just like C is to UNIX, JavaScript to the browsers, VB/C#/F#/C++ to .NET, Swift/Objective-C to iOS, ... Sure you can have other languages running there, but unless their is first tier support for those languages, most customers won't care and will only allow for first tier programming languages.
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
    If we take Scala for example that's only true if you write Java-like Scala code and what's the point of that? Once you go deep with Scala magic it goes downhill, but prob. 80% as fast. I think Java and other JVM languages can co-exist nicely, depending on the task at hand, there is no "need" to kill anything, I wish you could mix and match code from different JVM languages easily.
    - xaduha 10y ago
      Kotlin solves what Scala didn't. Great Java interop, first class IDE support, easier to get into. Whichever way you look at it Kotlin code is nicer than Java, even if written Java-like.