I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started writing java11 code is going to have a hard time accepting they need to write in java8, just as a java8 will bulk at writing in java5. Of course for the oldies it just feels nostalgic.
You claim jdk8 is more stable than jdk17, but I would argue the reverse. Problematic classes are continually being deprecated and removed, and better syntax makes code more readable, whatever the language. Improvements in the latest JEPs come out of an ecosystem vastly more organised (see https://openjdk.org/jeps/296). Not that stability is really the big issue for a build tool, but performance improvements also contribute to stability. What's the latest in JDK20? JEP 250 introduces compact object headers, reducing memory requirements by up to 20%. I'd love it if my build took 20% less memory (especially mvnd). Using the latest LTS is a signal of intent. Its a way of saying "this project is active, the maintainers are engaged, we are keeping up-to-date and we're able to balance the demands of legacy, and if you are starting a new project you should choose Maven" Delany On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 23:05, Hunter C Payne <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Folks who think like that have been using Scala or Kotlin for at least 5 > years by now. If you are still writing Java, it isn't for new features. > Hunter > > PS If you want to use "new features" use Scala or Kotlin. If you want > stability, use Java8. Using Java17 is a middle ground that gets nobody > anything they way. That's why are having a hard time naming a new feature > you want/need. > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 06:16:11 AM PDT, Delany < > delany.middle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There may not be a killer feature, but the cumulative changes are > appreciated, especially when you're used to them. Having closed the door on > whatever came before List.of its like a miniature thorn in my side every > time its not available. > > What motivated the change to JDK8? Were there any negative repercussions > from that? All I'm reading is guesses about the impact. Is there an actual > example of when the required JDK was raised and a tool was dropped or lost > out to another because of it? > > Anyway, if there's nothing substantial to gain from the change from 8 to > 17, then I don't see what is so disruptive about requiring it. Given that > there's no single killer feature, and no obviously drawback, the argument > should probably center on principles and even on determining a rule for > Maven to follow (this isn't the first time this chestnut of an argument has > come up). > > The vendor(s) and the source of the language are two different entities, so > who is Maven beholden to? Since vendor interests are monetized in a way > that Maven is not its more reasonable to expect Maven to follow Java's lead > (rather than a vendor's support lifecycle). > > Despite the core principle of backward compatibility in the Java ecosystem, > not adopting the latest LTS for a major Maven release is clearly going > against Java's efforts to promote more regular update cycles and all the > many automation and security benefits that comes with that. When > people/businesses push back against updates I immediately think they must > have some sub-standard DevOps workflow. Given that DevOps/JS cynics will > probably gravitate to Java ecosystem this is unsurprising. Java is full of > conservative sentiment. > > On the other hand there's the integrity of the language. Other languages > make a hard fork, while Java risks being multiple languages - fun for those > with decades of experience, but not encouraging to new faces who must > choose between 5 different ways to solve a problem. One of my colleagues > regularly portrays tech envy in sexual terms. Well guess what, we're human > not robots and yes its "sexier" and more "satisfying" to work with JDK17. > Ignoring that fact is itself irrational. > > Delany > > On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 11:46, Hervé Boutemy <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 > > > > I perfectly see the impact we'll have on our users: for what benefit? > > > > notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the few work > done > > on > > plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible with a JDK > > release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way > > > > Le vendredi 2 juin 2023, 01:50:53 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit : > > > I'm not sure I would worry too much about that David. I think most > devs > > > who want better syntax moved from Java sometime ago. They might still > be > > > on the JVM just not writing Java. Also, Maven is a mature project. I > > > don't think devs considering contributing to it are thinking about > using > > > the latest and greatest version of Java. Compatibility is probably a > > > bigger concern for the user base. Just my opinion. > > > > > > Hunter > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 04:17:26 PM PDT, David Jencks > > > <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if having maven require java 8 syntax discourages any > potential > > > contributors who are used to coding using more recent developments. I > > have > > > no idea how to tell, but maybe someone else does. > > > > > > David Jencks > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 2023, at 3:02 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > my clear opinion is to go with most recent JDK LTS version for the > > > > release point of Maven 4.0.0 which I assume will be JDK 21... > > > > > > > > That means clear the build time requirement which is completely > > > > different from runtime of an application. > > > > > > > > > > > > Older JDK's are supported by some vendors by having particular > special > > > > support which most of the time requires special contracts (means also > > > > paying money for it)..some of them offering builds without paying > money > > > > yes.. > > > > > > > > Older runtime target are supported with different approaches like > > > > Toolchain or via `--release XX` which exists since JDK9+. > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore if someone is not capable of upgrading the build > > environment > > > > to JDK9+ they can continue to use Maven 3.8.X or Maven 3.9.X... > > > > > > > > If it would be requirement to port things back to 3.8.X or 3.9.X it > > > > could be handled by someone who has the time etc. to do that ... if > > not, > > > > those people might think of paying someone to do that work... > > > > > > > > > > > > The given argument about JPMS for migration causes issues is from my > > > > point of view false-positive because migration to newer JDK versions > > > > does not require JPMS usage... > > > > > > > > Even platforms like AWS support JDK17 in the meantime which is the > > > > runtime... > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see a > number > > > > of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier for > example > > > > using sealed classes to prevent exposing internal things to public > > which > > > > could be used etc. also some other small features (`var` for example; > > > > Text-Blocks in Tests etc) or using records in some situation... > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the maintenance part it would mean in consequence to > downgrade > > > > to even JDK7... (or even lower) because you can get support for older > > > > JDK version in some ways... (JDK7 from azul for example) > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > >
