On Sep 30, 5:37 am, Serge Boulay <serge.bou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I got out of the podcast was that each jdk has a some sort of
> priorty/theme. For jdk 7, it’s modularity. Like any other business resources
> are allocated based on achieving that priority. Modularity is the major  
> change
> for jdk 7. While some of the additional coins proposals and feature requests
> found in the sun bug database would be technically good additions to java in
> general  - the priorites have already been established for JDK 7
> (modularity,  dynamic lang support,  annotations on types).
>
> I think this is reasonable no? At this point, adding anything else would
> comprimise the stablity of the release I would think.

I am not asking for anything else in JDK7. What I would like is an
attitude that doesn't say "its too hard" and instead says "we want to
see X, Y and Z in the language, now open source community, go out
there and implement them and we will choose the best one. If you don't
have a good enough one by when we ship JDK8, we won't include it.".
Saying "we have all the features" but "its too hard" is simply a cop
out - the person who leads the JLS and JVM spec needs to be focused on
improving the working lives of the average (and better than average)
Java developer. Java is by far the most popular language for software
development today, there are millions of people who do this every day.
This person absolutely must be focused on that role and if they
aren't, they need to go and do something else.  And this is especially
true for ideas that have been tried on languages that are very Java
like (e.g Groovy) and work extremely well.

Richard
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to