I really don't think anybody here is seriously trying to argue the case that the BGGA proposal was a complete no-brainer.
The problem of an entirely different nature: A proposal with the effort and momentum of BGGA was simply not reacted on by sun. Sure, a blog here, a blog there, but nothing official, for a very long time. The few official words uttered were lackluster. I'm not happy about it, but if sun wants to take it that slowly, that's their prerogative. Where I take exception, is when Joe Darcy complains about lack of community input. I call truth distortion: Of course there's no community input. You killed it. Communities don't just magically show up on your doorstep. They grow. And to grow, you need to nurture them. For what its worth, project coin is heading the right direction. Even replying to the java posse and to project lombok, is heading in the right direction. Finally opening up a bit about the module system, is sort of heading in the right direction, but if there's one complaint the OSGi fanclub is right about (and it would certainly be the only complaint they're right about), is that the technical documentation is a bit scarce. But this is not nearly good enough to rekindle the community that got killed off when BGGA was left to go out with a whimper. On Sep 13, 2:54 am, Bouhamza Khalil <khalil.bouha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since this is my first post on the javaposse, I would like to give my > most warm thanks to the posse members, I've been listening to the > podcast for a number of years now, you made a terrific job of it, > giving a very valuable service to the community. > > Here's my perspective on java language evolution and specifically > about closures. > > I believe closures didn't it into JDK7 plans for two reasons: > - Lack of high qualified resources to take over the java language design > - Not enough community consensus around the BGGA proposal > > The closure debate went live when Neal Gafter published the BGGA > closure proposal August 2006. It came roughly two years after the Java > Tiger release. After tiger a number of very talented individuals > involved in the Java language stewardship did leave Sun, the very > publicized ones were Joshua Block and Neal Gafter. The bleeding > didn't stop then, it continued while was google thriving, three months > after the initiation of BGGA, Gilad Bracha the 'B' in BGGA was joining > Cadence Systems, soon to be followed by Peter Von Ahe, the A in BGGA. > My impression is that within Sun, there are fewer and fewer people > that are up to the task of changing a language such as Java, one with > such a huge user base. Currently there seems to be far too few Alex > Buckleys and Joe Darceys, sure there remains others but unfortunately > not working on the Java language such as Guy Steel or Brian Goetz. > > Neal Gafter did a truly magnificient job developping the specification > and the prototype for closure. He did illustrate the need for them, > why anonymous inner classes don't qualify, the use of closures with > the existing APIs, Exception transparency and much more. The prototype > was of a high quality and quite complete with a patched javac and > Javdoc. IDE support could have followed since Netbeans uses javac. > However the point of views were quite divergent, there were three > leading closures proposals but the central question was whether > closures were a good fit for Java. Neal's proposal was in contrast of > the CISE proposal which was just syntactic suger on anonymous inner > classes. In java there are many hurdles to overcome for a closure > implementation chiefly: > - the use of return > - break and continue > People exposed to Scala find closure extremely natural, one of the > resaons is that everything in Scala is an expression, there are far > fewer return statements in Scala compared to Java. Within project coin > Neal Gafter had a proposal for block expression, which could pave the > way to closures, unfortunately the proposal didn't get a lot of > traction. Tiger was a major release with a number of game-changing > features, enums annotations and Generics. Generics implementation with > erasure and wildcards, was criticized quite widely in the blogsphere, > people who didn't look favourably upon closures did feel that Java has > reached a complexity tipping point, and closure would just push the > language into the void. Critics over Generics were not completely > unfounded, in Tiger for example Doug Lea and team did not get > invokeAny and invokeAll method signature right in ExecuterService, the > signature was subsequently changed in JDK 1.6. Joshua Block was one of > the most vocal critics of the BGGA proposal. In Javapolis 2007 he > actually chnaged his presentation from "Effective java reloaded" to > "The closures controversy" > seehttp://parleys.com/display/PARLEYS/Home#title=The%20Closures%20Contro.... > Now that the dust has settled around generics, with frameworks such as > Wicket after much debate adopting them, with PECS mnemonic thanks to > Joshua Block, and Scala type system exposure, closures have gained in > mind share, but back then Joshua Block's message was quite effective. > > I can understand Joe's Darcy pragmatic position, given the limited > resources to constrain the problem domain to one that small language > changes could address, these efforts could indeed be completed within > a reasonable JDK7 time frame, but I can also see Dick's point, that in > doing so, it is turning down innovative ideas and diverting community > contributions, what Java is actually needing most. > > Finally I'd like to hail Neal Gafter efforts, his posture has been > exemplary throughout, even after closures rejection, he is still > contributing positively and eagerly to the java ecosystem, an example > to follow. > > Cheers, > Khalil > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Dick Wall <dickw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well - back from a mini "vacation" and what a lot got stirred up. I > > wanted to clear a few things before hopefully getting together with > > Joe and anyone else interested next week to talk through the rest. I > > will keep comments short here, mainly due to time, but I am sure this > > will not be the end of the story. In brief: > > > My comments about "being told they can't" were actually uttered with > > the JCP and not Sun in mind - Joe - you added the [by Sun] modifier to > > the end (and I find that willingness to claim the link interesting as > > well). However, later in the same article you mention " we try to err > > on the side of being conservative (saying "No." by default) first to > > do no harm, but also to preserve the value of existing Java sources, > > class files, and programmer skills". I don't know which "we" you are > > referring too here, but this is definitely the source of the > > frustration that leads to energetic and talented developers to work > > outside the traditional parameters and come up with ideas like Lombok. > > I completely stand by what I say - I have heard "we" just say no to > > ideas like properties and closures to Java with my own ears, so it's > > little wonder people find other ways. > > > As listeners to the podcast will know, I am firmly behind Scala as an > > alternative, and it is an alternative that suits me well personally. I > > applaud efforts like Lombok and others though, that help improve > > things and *should* keep everyone happy (after all, they are optional > > and do not change the core platform or libraries), and yet many of the > > same "we" that are against change in Java also seem to be against > > Lombok or even Scala when I talk to them for any length of time. > > > The last point I want to make, and the one I find hardest to swallow, > > is the inherent assumption that unless someone has the skills or > > willingness to work on a prototype of their own, they should not have > > an opinion or at least should not be surprised if that opinion is > > ignored or refused. > > > Let's think about that another way. We are all developers here (well, > > I would imagine most are that are reading this). If I applied that > > attitude to my own job, the scientists and other subject matter > > experts (who frankly know a lot more than me about the stuff that > > matters) would never get what they need to do their job. I would be > > insisting that they write up a prototype before I would implement a > > solution for them. It is my *job* to translate those wishes into > > actuality for them. That is the role of a software developer. In other > > words, they are my customers, and their opinions are actually far more > > important than my own, since they know what they want out of a genetic > > calculator, or lab sample tracking system, or whatever else. Can I do > > everything they want - well, no - I am resource limited just like > > yourselves, but will you ever hear me tell them that they absolutely > > can't have something unless they do it themselves, no you won't, nor > > will I discourage them from working on something themselves. > > > Any time I hear someone working on a compiler telling a developer that > > they don't need that feature or they don't understand what they are > > asking for, I cringe. The people using the Java language likely at > > least have a clue what they need - maybe you can't listen to a single > > voice, but when enough people ask for something, even if they are not > > language experts, surely you should still listen? It is great that you > > guys are language and compiler experts, for the reason that it frees > > me and others like me to do what we need to do (could you write a > > human genome risk calculator?). My answer for much of my recent work > > has been to use Scala, as that solves my problems and meets my needs > > much better than Java does now, others will find their own way, but > > requiring everyone to submit prototypes before a proposal will be > > considered I think is just a handy excuse to retain the status quo, > > and honestly you can't stand in the way of progress - it will simply > > find another path. > > > I look forward to talking through these points in more detail soon. > > > Cheers > > > Dick > > > On Sep 2, 8:44 pm, jddarcy <jdda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> After listening to episode 277, I'm led to conclude I'm thought of by > >> some as one of the "ivory tower guys" who "just says no" to ideas > >> about changing the Java programming language. > > >> I have a rather different perspective. > > >> In November 2006, Sun published javac and related code under the > >> familiar GPLv2 with Classpath exception. [1] > > >> Shortly thereafter in January 2007, no less a Java luminary than James > >> Gosling endorsed the Kitchen Sink Language (KSL) project. [2] In > >> James' words KSL is "A place where people could throw language > >> features, no matter how absurd, just so that folks could play around" > >> since he has "... never been real happy with debates about language > >> features, I'd much rather implement them and try them out." > > >> KSL received no significant community response. > > >> Later in 2007, after the remaining core components of the platform > >> were published as open source software as part of OpenJDK during > >> JavaOne, in November Kijaro was created. [4] Kijaro is similar in > >> spirit to KSL, but not does require contributors to sign the Sun > >> Contributor Agreement (SCA). Before... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
