What is really wide open about Java is that anyone can write a library, framework, build system, code analyzer, ide, jvm language, etc, and that there is a broader community and culture around that. The Java ecosystem has a really strong track record of success stories: Ant, Maven, JUnit, Scala, Groovy, Lucene, Hadoop, eclipse, IntelliJ, Jenkins, etc.
The core Java language, library, and VM are only partially open in that the source and version control has public read access, some of the genuine internal design discussions take place on public live read/write dev mailing lists, and the core Oracle team really does incorporate lots of outside contributions. But, Oracle doesn't offer full participation to the public, and expecting that is probably unrealistic and impractical. You can criticize the Java platform because the core language/vm being semi-closed, but .NET is even more closed in that the .NET culture is much less open to any using any non-Microsoft library or framework or language. I can't imagine a community build tool taking off in the .NET culture the way that Ant or Maven did or a third party language taking off the way Scala did or a third party IDE taking off like IntelliJ or such polished first-class cross-OS support for Linux/Windows/Mac. On Sunday, January 6, 2013 10:53:58 AM UTC-6, Lenny P wrote: > > Anyone get this to the right people and get it fixed? > > ..... > Re: [project lombok] Why not request a JSR to include it in Java SE? > > We've tried to get far less ambitious changes into java, and I'm holding > back when I say that the experience has been "disappointing". > > Our most recent 2 attempts: > > * Allow 'any annotation' as a valid option for annotation fields. This > lets us enable onMethod, onConstructor, and onParam properly. This was shot > down under the motto: "Looks like you put in all the effort we usually ask > for" (including patches to both the JLS and javac, and a lengthy discussion > on the effects), but there is 'no time'. Note that the 2 persons involved > in this part of java, Joe Darcy and Alex Buckley, created an entirely > different annotation-related feature a few months later, so I can only > conclude that either Not-Invented-Here syndrome is involved, or, anything > that isn't directly requested by other departments in oracle is simply not > important. > > * Show how that other proposal (multiple annotations of the same type on a > single member) is ill thought through and is clearly being rushed, with a > spec half-baked. I've been informed my comments are not welcome, and that > there is at this point no time (heh, that sounds familiar) to fix things. > Note that right now the spec is being changed anyway due to comments from > the JavaEE lead that originally asked for this feature. Yet again that 'no > time' things seems to be a convenient excuse, but, then, I don't know how > things are run inside oracle. That is a big part of the problem - > opaqueness. > > You can see why, personally, I've given up. The process to add things to > java is too opaque and the effort required to satisfy requirements is far > too large knowing that so far we've been turned down every time. If I had a > reasonable guarantee that, if the spec is near perfect, the patches to > javac are bug free, and there are no outstanding issues, that it would > happen, I'd put in the effort. > > I get the strong feeling that if no project lead within Oracle personally > cares, your odds of getting anything into java is pretty much nil, but no > Oracle project lead is going to go public with support in case things > backfire. > > --Reinier Zwitserloot > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Mike Dias > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > I was upset with Java by ALWAYS force me to write getters/setters. I love > Java, but I hate the unnecessary verbosity of getters/setters. > > So I found the Project Lombok and my eyes can shine again with clean code! > =) > > In my humble opinion, this project should be part of the Java SE and > fortunately this is possible through of Java Community Process: > > "Any individual, organization, or company that signs the Java > Specification Participation Agreement (JSPA). (Members may also be called > Participants elsewhere on this web site.) Members enjoy all the privileges > of Public participation, plus they can: > propose new or revised Java API specification projects by filing a JSR..." > What do you think? > -- > > > > -- > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/9zx46scrPisJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
