Just to be clear, there is no "hate" on my part. I know the "tone" is hard to communicate via email. I just disagree that Java 8 support should continue in the main codebase. When I suggest that a Java 8 compatible fork is how to proceed, I wish you all the best of success with it. If you have that need I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to pursue it.
I don't see the case for Java 8 going forward with new NB releases, and I disagree that that main code should be muddied with any "ifs" to support Java 8. I just don't see that it is worth it. In fact I see it as a net negative to keep dragging out the life of Java 8. We should actively promote moving forward rather than staying in the past. Draw the line, maintain a Java 8 fork if necessary, keep the rest of the code Java 11+ with a policy that is clear about when that support will no longer be guaranteed and how the minimum version is decided. Clean and simple. This is particularly important for an open source project that needs to attract developers. Nobody *wants* to maintain ancient code. Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE", if it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" ( https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide), then it seems to have Windows 10, Ubuntu 16.04, macOs 10.15 as minimums. Java 11 runs on those platforms, and a JRE has been distributed with the product since 5.40. So I continue to search for a real case for Java 8 support. Scott On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in > the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy > consensus" as obsolete. > > I still need a bit of time to think about using your email strategically, > but in any case I'm happy. I am no longer the only one who gets all the > hater! > > Thank you Sváťo! > -jt > > ... >
