[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
Yes, now it is unfortunately - but for a long while it was cooking and people had their hopes up, tracking community leaders and language experts like yourself. My point was just to correct the misconception that LINQ is hardwired into the language, when the reality is it's a thin syntactical veneer around an extensible API (I.e. http://code.google.com/p/dblinq2007/). /Casper On Jan 11, 5:37 am, gafter wrote: > On Jan 9, 8:29 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > ... For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. > > Um... you mean OFF the table for Java 7? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
The mediocre API of C# is a known turnoff and a perpetual annoyance to the mono folks (because a lot of API isn't open), so using C#'s API design as a plus seems odd. I don't think many here is saying that more language features are bad. A few were perhaps for a while, but the surprising response at the devoxx live javaposse was that virtually nobody really buys into the 'java is perfect as is / we can only go down from here' rhetoric. The difference is a bit more nuanced, and just as the C# folk here are preaching to the java folk that we drop our prejudices and have a good look, you should perhaps take your own advice on this one: I think people are taking a bit of an exception to the monkeyhouse method (toss shit at the wall, see what sticks) that C# is employing in regards to language features. Remember perl: There's already anecdotal proof out there that the sum is LESS than its parts when you toss good features at a language, too quickly and without thinking of a sensible whole. Simple case in point: C# 1.0 was a virtual java clone with different capitalization conventions, slightly different keywords, and very awkward libraries, and a different runtime. C# 3 is far less like the latest java, and the distance between them is almost entirely from the C# camp. I'm still annoyed that acknowledges oft used patterns do NOT swiftly make it into the language (case in point, BigInteger/BigDecimal syntax is evidently off the boards because of lack of interest. Well, duh. It's a really simple change that absolutely no one is going to put at the top of their list, but you have to divide the interest shown by the impact on the language, and in this case, you're pretty much dividing by 0. Get with it already, sheesh!) - the optimum IMO is C#'s laconic attitude to keeping the status quo combined with java's obsession to only do work on established patterns, instead of blazing new ground with e.g. LINQ. We'll let the trailblazing be done by other languages; that's what a common runtime is for. On Jan 11, 3:37 am, "James Dumay" wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > I disagree. > > In the Framework Design Guidelines book by Microsoft Press, the .NET > BCL Team at Microsoft state two imporant objectives of a good .NET > API: > 1) The API should not depend on any one language feature (LINQ is > probably an exception to this rule) > 2) That the API's are designed with care so that even the most > mediocre developer can use and understand them but still remain > powerful for more experienced developers. > > This idea has been extended somewhat to the C# language itself - the > fundamentals of the language are simple enough to grasp (Its no > different to Java 1.4) and the API's try not to force new language > features onto the developer. > > Cheers, > James --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote: > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. I disagree. In the Framework Design Guidelines book by Microsoft Press, the .NET BCL Team at Microsoft state two imporant objectives of a good .NET API: 1) The API should not depend on any one language feature (LINQ is probably an exception to this rule) 2) That the API's are designed with care so that even the most mediocre developer can use and understand them but still remain powerful for more experienced developers. This idea has been extended somewhat to the C# language itself - the fundamentals of the language are simple enough to grasp (Its no different to Java 1.4) and the API's try not to force new language features onto the developer. Cheers, James --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Jan 9, 8:29 am, Casper Bang wrote: > ... For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. Um... you mean OFF the table for Java 7? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:55 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com < phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at > least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's > very very powerful You mean, like a SCAlable LAnguage? > > > I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead > of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies > together, etc. That's why I am a big fan of RoR. My architecture is > pretty much already done: I have a directory structure, a build > system, an Ajax framework, a database migration system (which doesn't > even exist in java world really), an ORM layer, and plugins for > background jobs, deployment etc. If I don't like some of the choices > I can easily override (like datamapper instead of active record, > jquery instead of prototype, etc) > > In other words I don't like re-inventing the wheel :) > > Of course there are things I really hate about RoR (like it's > dependence on native code ) > > > On Jan 9, 9:29 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these > > debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the > > Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of > > Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of > > both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for > > this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve > > your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more > > complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be. > > For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. > > Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker > > with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292. > > > > /Casper > > > > On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" > > wrote: > > > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > > > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > > > > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET > 2.0, > > > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > > > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > > > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > > > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > > > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR > concerns. > > > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from > day > > > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > > > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list > of > > > > classloader hacks. > > > > > > /Casper > > > -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
BTW, I think I went OT. Sorry before I am scolded. On Jan 9, 4:55 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" wrote: > great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at > least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's > very very powerful > > I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead > of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies > together, etc. That's why I am a big fan of RoR. My architecture is > pretty much already done: I have a directory structure, a build > system, an Ajax framework, a database migration system (which doesn't > even exist in java world really), an ORM layer, and plugins for > background jobs, deployment etc. If I don't like some of the choices > I can easily override (like datamapper instead of active record, > jquery instead of prototype, etc) > > In other words I don't like re-inventing the wheel :) > > Of course there are things I really hate about RoR (like it's > dependence on native code ) > > On Jan 9, 9:29 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these > > debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the > > Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of > > Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of > > both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for > > this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve > > your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more > > complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be. > > For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. > > Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker > > with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292. > > > /Casper > > > On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" > > wrote: > > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > > > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > > > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > > > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > > > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > > > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. > > > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day > > > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > > > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of > > > > classloader hacks. > > > > > /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's very very powerful I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies together, etc. That's why I am a big fan of RoR. My architecture is pretty much already done: I have a directory structure, a build system, an Ajax framework, a database migration system (which doesn't even exist in java world really), an ORM layer, and plugins for background jobs, deployment etc. If I don't like some of the choices I can easily override (like datamapper instead of active record, jquery instead of prototype, etc) In other words I don't like re-inventing the wheel :) Of course there are things I really hate about RoR (like it's dependence on native code ) On Jan 9, 9:29 am, Casper Bang wrote: > Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these > debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the > Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of > Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of > both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for > this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve > your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more > complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be. > For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. > Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker > with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292. > > /Casper > > On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" > wrote: > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. > > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day > > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of > > > classloader hacks. > > > > /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
Phil, Sun and the JCP aren't directly interested in new ideas to change the Java language. Fundamentally they already know all the ideas. It can be worthwhile writing them up semi-formally (if you look at my specs they are not monster) and changing the compiler to match. See the Kijaro project if you are interested in this - http://kijaro.dev.java.net. Stephen On Jan 8, 8:03 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" wrote: > > wrote: > I would like to contribute some ideas to the Java language, not quite > sure where to get started Do you have to be a member of the JCP to > contribute ideas? Do ideas require writing monster specs? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be. For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7. Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292. /Casper On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" wrote: > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of > > classloader hacks. > > > /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang wrote: > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of > classloader hacks. > > /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright wrote: > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns. Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of classloader hacks. /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0, 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job! Most corporates are a version or two behind anyway. We have people in our organisation who are having to be dragged from Java 1.4 to 1.5 and 1.6. On Jan 8, 9:12 am, "Adam G." wrote: > Maybe C# moves a lot faster than Java, but this is not too positive > for a language. I used to work with C# 2.0 and mobile devices some > time ago. Looking at the last changes in the language it really gives > me the feeling that I have to learn lots of new stuff before I can use > C# again. > > On Jan 8, 3:35 am, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" > wrote: > > > can anyone deny that C# moves a lot faster than Java? > > > It seems that Sun is trapped by the design by committee JCP. Neal > > Grafter mentioned this in a previous post to the group check this > > out:http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse/browse_thread/thread/78675ae... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Van Riper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM, phil.swen...@gmail.com > wrote: >> I would like to contribute some ideas to the Java language, not quite >> sure where to get started Do you have to be a member of the JCP to >> contribute ideas? Do ideas require writing monster specs? > > I'm a JCP newbie myself. Individual membership is free, but, you have > to complete a legal agreement and get your employer to sign off on it > too. I did that recently. Don't be scared off by the 10+ page legal > document. It is just for legal reasons so that you can't come back > later and say something you contributed to some JSR as a JCP member is > IP that belongs to your employer. Basically, you agree to not > contribute ideas or code that your company has IP rights to. Pretty > standard legal stuff. By the way, this went quite smoothly for me. Luckily, I work for a small startup. So, the legal review by my company before my boss (one of the founders) signed off took about 5 minutes. =) After I faxed in the legal document, I was setup as a JCP member within the next 48 hours. That is the good news. The bad news is this doesn't get you much. You are still pretty much on your own to seek out a JSR of interest and convince the individuals in charge of that JSR that you are "worthy" to contribute to it. > > Seems to me (realizing I am recent JCP member myself) the best way to > get started is to find an existing JSR that you would like to > contribute to. Typically, the expert group is working on a reference > implementation in parallel to the spec development. Also typically, > there is a dev mailing list that anyone can follow for the individual > JSRs. I've started following JSR 310 and may volunteer at some point > to help out on the reference implementation they are working on. In my > case with JSR 310, there is a SVN repository for the reference > implementation that anyone can checkout from. Obviously, you have to > prove yourself before you will get committer permissions on that > repository. > > Others on this list that are more familiar with JCP and JSR activities > please feel free to chime in with your thoughts. > > Thanks, Van > > -- > | Michael "Van" Riper > | http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/ > | http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper > > | Silicon Valley Web JUG > | mailto:van_ri...@dev.java.net > | https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net > > | Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group > | mailto:van.g...@gmail.com > | http://sv-gtug.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM, phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote: > I would like to contribute some ideas to the Java language, not quite > sure where to get started Do you have to be a member of the JCP to > contribute ideas? Do ideas require writing monster specs? I'm a JCP newbie myself. Individual membership is free, but, you have to complete a legal agreement and get your employer to sign off on it too. I did that recently. Don't be scared off by the 10+ page legal document. It is just for legal reasons so that you can't come back later and say something you contributed to some JSR as a JCP member is IP that belongs to your employer. Basically, you agree to not contribute ideas or code that your company has IP rights to. Pretty standard legal stuff. Seems to me (realizing I am recent JCP member myself) the best way to get started is to find an existing JSR that you would like to contribute to. Typically, the expert group is working on a reference implementation in parallel to the spec development. Also typically, there is a dev mailing list that anyone can follow for the individual JSRs. I've started following JSR 310 and may volunteer at some point to help out on the reference implementation they are working on. In my case with JSR 310, there is a SVN repository for the reference implementation that anyone can checkout from. Obviously, you have to prove yourself before you will get committer permissions on that repository. Others on this list that are more familiar with JCP and JSR activities please feel free to chime in with your thoughts. Thanks, Van -- | Michael "Van" Riper | http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/ | http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper | Silicon Valley Web JUG | mailto:van_ri...@dev.java.net | https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net | Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group | mailto:van.g...@gmail.com | http://sv-gtug.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
> wrote: > > can anyone deny that C# moves a lot faster than Java? > > I don't have the data to confirm or deny that, but, faster does not > necessarily mean better. > Agreed. But in this case I do think C# is a better language. Definitely more powerful (closures, delegates, LINQ, etc). I use Java because I don't want to be stuck on Windows I would like to contribute some ideas to the Java language, not quite sure where to get started Do you have to be a member of the JCP to contribute ideas? Do ideas require writing monster specs? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Jan 8, 5:51 pm, "Van Riper" wrote: > I don't have the data to confirm or deny that, but, faster does not > necessarily mean better. True, but few would argue innovation is bad, apart from conservative people trapped in legacy land, who are welcome to stay with an older version. > I take issue with that interpretation of Neal's post. I believe the > thrust of his post was about lack of Sun commitment to funding > Language Design Specialists like himself to focus on adding new > language features. My interpretation is that he is against both committee design as well as community design, as he was subjected to over the closure debate. To paraphrase Anders Hejlsberg: "You'll want a small group of people, with good taste... that's hard to define, though you sorta recognize it when you see it", which can explain why Gafter felt like contributing where he could actually make a difference. Ironically, recent events regarding Jigsaw overtaking JSR-277 and OSGi paints a similar picture when it comes to committee and community design. /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Jan 8, 5:51 pm, "Van Riper" wrote: > I don't have the data to confirm or deny that, but, faster does not > necessarily mean better. True, but few would argue innovation is bad, apart from conservative people trapped in legacy land, who are welcome to stay with an older version. > I take issue with that interpretation of Neal's post. I believe the > thrust of his post was about lack of Sun commitment to funding > Language Design Specialists like himself to focus on adding new > language features. My interpretation is that he is against both committee design as well as community design, as he was subjected to over the closure debate. To paraphrase Anders Hejlsberg: "You'll want a small group of people, with good taste... that's hard to define, though you sorta recognize it when you see it", which can explain why Gafter felt like contributing where he could actually make a difference. Ironically, recent events regarding JigSaw overtaking JSR-296 and OSGi paints a similar picture when it comes to committee and community design. /Casper --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:35 PM, phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote: > can anyone deny that C# moves a lot faster than Java? I don't have the data to confirm or deny that, but, faster does not necessarily mean better. > It seems that Sun is trapped by the design by committee JCP. Neal > Grafter mentioned this in a previous post to the group check this > out: > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse/browse_thread/thread/78675aebb705506b/7a6ddb5f725490c7?lnk=gst&q=from%3A+neal+gafter#7a6ddb5f725490c7 I take issue with that interpretation of Neal's post. I believe the thrust of his post was about lack of Sun commitment to funding Language Design Specialists like himself to focus on adding new language features. The JCP is essentially a standards organization. As such, it is intended to codify standards after the technologies have proven themselves in the field. Most JSRs are led by or at least have prominent expert group members that worked on the related technology including full prototypes (if not commercial grade working solutions in the wild already) that the standard is being created for. Yeah. Committees get involved in creating standards. That is a necessary evil of any standards creation process. I'm not saying that some design-by-committee is not going on within the JCP. I'm just saying that when done properly this should not be the case and there are many experienced developers/designers involved in the JCP that understand this quite well. Several of them articulated this very point at a recent QCon panel which I participated in. Most notably, Rod Johnson made this point as one of the new JCP EC members participating on the panel. This is a good segue to encourage people that are not happy with the current JCP to get involved. Anyone can become an individual member of the JCP. Be the change you wish to see, why not join the JCP? =) http://jcp.org/en/participation/membership Cheers, Van | Michael "Van" Riper | http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/ | http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper | Silicon Valley Web JUG | mailto:van_ri...@dev.java.net | https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net | Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group | mailto:van.g...@gmail.com | http://sv-gtug.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
Maybe C# moves a lot faster than Java, but this is not too positive for a language. I used to work with C# 2.0 and mobile devices some time ago. Looking at the last changes in the language it really gives me the feeling that I have to learn lots of new stuff before I can use C# again. On Jan 8, 3:35 am, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" wrote: > can anyone deny that C# moves a lot faster than Java? > > It seems that Sun is trapped by the design by committee JCP. Neal > Grafter mentioned this in a previous post to the group check this > out:http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse/browse_thread/thread/78675ae... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
can anyone deny that C# moves a lot faster than Java? It seems that Sun is trapped by the design by committee JCP. Neal Grafter mentioned this in a previous post to the group check this out: http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse/browse_thread/thread/78675aebb705506b/7a6ddb5f725490c7?lnk=gst&q=from%3A+neal+gafter#7a6ddb5f725490c7 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
You know... perhaps in fairness to the posse, I think there complaint was not that JDK 7 had not come out but what was going to go in (the JSR spec) had not been finalized. Still Sun did produce a lot of stuff for us this year, so I'm not complaining but I do want my JSR-305 annotations! (okay, I'm complaining a little) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
I also think that given Sun's clearly limited resources 6u10 and a nearer term Java 7 delivery were mutually exclusive options, i.e. Java 7 is where it is in part because Sun spent so much energy making Java 6 Update 10 (and 11 and 12) so much better -- even without bringing JavaFX into the picture. -- Jess Holle Joshua Marinacci wrote: > Absolutely. In any normal time 6u10 would really be a full new > release of Java. However, that would require even more overhead and > time due to the complexities of putting out a new release with new > API. We specifically designed 6u10 to *not* introduce any new API. > This allowed us to fast track the process and get things like the new > plugin, the download kernel, and better graphics acceleration into > your hands much faster. > > - Josh > > On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:31 AM, hayden.paul.jo...@gmail.com wrote >> One comment I would like to make is that while we did not get JDK 7 >> last year, we did get java 6 update 10 which involved a lot of work. >> I think one of the reasons they called it 6u10 rather than java 7 was >> to increase vendor pickup (as a new version would need to be reviewed >> by the vendors first) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[The Java Posse] Re: Java Posse #224 (On a lack of JDK 7)
Absolutely. In any normal time 6u10 would really be a full new release of Java. However, that would require even more overhead and time due to the complexities of putting out a new release with new API. We specifically designed 6u10 to *not* introduce any new API. This allowed us to fast track the process and get things like the new plugin, the download kernel, and better graphics acceleration into your hands much faster. - Josh On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:31 AM, hayden.paul.jo...@gmail.com wrote: > > One comment I would like to make is that while we did not get JDK 7 > last year, we did get java 6 update 10 which involved a lot of work. > I think one of the reasons they called it 6u10 rather than java 7 was > to increase vendor pickup (as a new version would need to be reviewed > by the vendors first) > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
