5 ms·

Starting from 1.6 they only showed the minor version number. So 1.6 = Java 6, 1.8 = Java 8, etc. I always assumed this was because .net (arguably it's main com

Starting from 1.6 they only showed the minor version number. So 1.6 = Java 6, 1.8 = Java 8, etc. I always assumed this was because .net (arguably it's main competitor) was churning fast through version numbers and they "wanted to keep up".

shadycuz 5y ago
Ahh so 17, is 1.17? I swear I googled this like 2 months ago and the first 2 or 3 links weren't helpful so I gave up. Thanks!
- shawnz 5y ago
  Effectively yes, but the "1.x" format is deprecated since Java 9 and not used anymore, whereas versions 5 through 8 used both notations. See https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-element-from-version-numbers https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-ele...
oaiey 5y ago
And now it is the other way around. C# burning through the versions to catch up the versions (and not so much the content). PS: had to edit, was really just a note about the numbers not the content of the versions!!!
- x0n 5y ago
  Catch up to what? The JDK 17 JEP list reads like a list of things that were added to dotnet years ago.
  - jsiepkes 5y ago
    Thats kind of a hyperbole. .net didn't add support for macOS on ARM64 years ago. .net also didn't implement 2D rendering on macOS via Metal. etc. As a matter of fact .net didn't even support any other platform then Windows until recently.
    - metaltyphoon 5y ago
      Also hyperbole, dotnet supported other platforms years ago via mono.
      - jsiepkes 5y ago
        I think I would be generous if I stated 10% of the .net applications ran on Mono instead of MS CLR without source modifications. I even doubt more then 60% of the .net applications ran on .net Core (needed for other platforms then Windows) without modifications. Meaning .net has nowhere near the "write once, run anywhere" support Java has.
  - oaiey 5y ago
    Just version numbers, not content :)
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  C# has never had to play catch-up with Java, it's always been the other way around.
  - pulse7 5y ago
    Ohhh.... C# was invented as a response to Java... So it had to play catch-up with Java - at it's inception...
    - jsiepkes 5y ago
      Even worse: C# came as a response when Microsoft failed to apply their embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on Java like they did with Netscape[1]. In the end the case was settled out of court and MS agreed to pay more then 1 billion dollar to Sun. MS also agreed to license a whole slew of patents for use with .net. [1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsoft-for-1-billion-over-java https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsof...
nobleach 5y ago
It was a very Sun-like thing to do. Sun dropped the 2. after their 2.6 release. Solaris 7 was the next release... then 8.

shadycuz 5y ago

Ahh so 17, is 1.17? I swear I googled this like 2 months ago and the first 2 or 3 links weren't helpful so I gave up. Thanks!

shawnz 5y ago
Effectively yes, but the "1.x" format is deprecated since Java 9 and not used anymore, whereas versions 5 through 8 used both notations. See https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-element-from-version-numbers https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-ele...

oaiey 5y ago

And now it is the other way around. C# burning through the versions to catch up the versions (and not so much the content). PS: had to edit, was really just a note about the numbers not the content of the versions!!!

x0n 5y ago
Catch up to what? The JDK 17 JEP list reads like a list of things that were added to dotnet years ago.
- jsiepkes 5y ago
  Thats kind of a hyperbole. .net didn't add support for macOS on ARM64 years ago. .net also didn't implement 2D rendering on macOS via Metal. etc. As a matter of fact .net didn't even support any other platform then Windows until recently.
  - metaltyphoon 5y ago
    Also hyperbole, dotnet supported other platforms years ago via mono.
    - jsiepkes 5y ago
      I think I would be generous if I stated 10% of the .net applications ran on Mono instead of MS CLR without source modifications. I even doubt more then 60% of the .net applications ran on .net Core (needed for other platforms then Windows) without modifications. Meaning .net has nowhere near the "write once, run anywhere" support Java has.
- oaiey 5y ago
  Just version numbers, not content :)
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
C# has never had to play catch-up with Java, it's always been the other way around.
- pulse7 5y ago
  Ohhh.... C# was invented as a response to Java... So it had to play catch-up with Java - at it's inception...
  - jsiepkes 5y ago
    Even worse: C# came as a response when Microsoft failed to apply their embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on Java like they did with Netscape[1]. In the end the case was settled out of court and MS agreed to pay more then 1 billion dollar to Sun. MS also agreed to license a whole slew of patents for use with .net. [1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsoft-for-1-billion-over-java https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsof...

nobleach 5y ago

It was a very Sun-like thing to do. Sun dropped the 2. after their 2.6 release. Solaris 7 was the next release... then 8.