4 ms·
1) It is a major revision: it's called Java 9. 2) This is a very mature, professional, thoughtful, low impact way to break backwards compatibility. It is also
by malcolmgreaves 9y ago
1) It is a major revision: it's called Java 9.
2) This is a very mature, professional, thoughtful, low impact way to break backwards compatibility. It is also a break for a very good idea: core library modularization.
3) Emotionally, it sounds like you've staked out this hill that you're set on dying upon. I think you're prepping yourself for some unnecessary suffering. Your words sound incredibly binary. Real world engineering is about finding balance: all solutions are trade-offs because we're optimizing many variables.
- ivanbakel 9y agoJava numbers work differently - presumably to build up the hype of new releases. Java version x is in fact version 1.x, a minor revision from Java 1.0. This started with Java 5, and is still visible if you do `java version` today since it correctly displays the 1.x version - in my case, 1.8. >It is also a break for a very good idea: core library modularization. I understand perfectly well the justification they have for breaking backwards compatibility, and that's not the point - the question is why this justification is now accepted above the principle of backwards compatibility in such a way that they've permitted no other changes which would have a similar impact on users. The designers have made a major change - why go halfway?
- coldtea 9y ago>The designers have made a major change - why go halfway? Because you're not supposed to slide head down on the first slippery slope you encounter...