I think that you are suffering way more downvotes than you deserve because your actual point (which becomes clear in this comment) is really good but your origi

I think that you are suffering way more downvotes than you deserve because your actual point (which becomes clear in this comment) is really good but your original comment is a little too vague and your tone is somewhat abrasive. But I do think it's true: up until very recently, Java features that break compatibility in any way whatsoever have been rejected out of hand simply on that basis. If the standard had been a this loose in the past, we might have a better Java now. That said, I feel like this change really just means that it's time to start proposing changes that give major benefits at the cost of minor compatibility breaks, rather than trying to resist the change of standards.