On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
>
> (warning, this is long).
>
>
> It's easier to invent a new language than improve the old one for the
> same reason it's far faster and cheaper to build a brand new road then
> to do minor repairs on an existing road that's *in use*. Thi
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Joseph Darcy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Bob Lee wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>> he people you want input from would have
>> needed 24 full hours or more, and would instead have the knowledg
Hey, no word of disagreement for me there. *any* step towards letting
the any language stay up to date without causing a small army of
pitchfork wielders when it inevitably breaks old stuff, is a module
system. Go go Jigsaw!
On Sep 19, 5:30 pm, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> many hard problems become
many hard problems become solvable with a module system. that's why
it's the most important feature for JDK 7
On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> These are (easily) solvable problems. Especially with a module system.
>
> On Sep 18, 7:05 pm, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> On Sep
These are (easily) solvable problems. Especially with a module system.
On Sep 18, 7:05 pm, Alex Buckley wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:51 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> > Alex, 'source' simply acknowledges that java (the language) syntax and
> > java (the runtime library) dependencies are utterly un
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Bob Lee wrote:
>
[snip]
> In regards to the coin form: You didn't answer my question, Joe, you
> just went on the defense. Why not accept proposals based on less
> officious bits and more useful bits, and make
> You have written an excellent
> post:http://blogs.sun.com/abuckley/en_US/entry/versioning_in_the_java_plat...,
> but I don’t see the relevance to the requested source proposal. No one
> is asking you to solve the issues you raise. All people are asking is
> that the source statement behaves lik
Alex,
You have written an excellent post:
http://blogs.sun.com/abuckley/en_US/entry/versioning_in_the_java_platform,
but I don’t see the relevance to the requested source proposal. No one
is asking you to solve the issues you raise. All people are asking is
that the source statement behaves like
Replying to my own post:
On Sep 18, 10:05 am, Alex Buckley wrote:
> This discussion precisely demonstrates my earlier point. Some people
> don't merely suggest a language feature; they demand a detailed
> interactive discussion with Sun on the feature.
It occurs to me that some people will imme
Hi Stuart,
On Sep 17, 8:51 pm, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> Yes circumvent is a bad choice of words - but while catching up with email
> last night I found it interesting to read a post here with the following
> quote:
So you are NOT claiming that Sun is circumventing the JCP by
developing the Jig
On Sep 17, 5:51 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Alex, 'source' simply acknowledges that java (the language) syntax and
> java (the runtime library) dependencies are utterly unrelated things.
Incorrect. Language features often rely on library features. See
http://blogs.sun.com/abuckley/en_US/ent
Personally, I'm dying to see the probable start up improvements that
the java plug-in will gain from modularity. (Though you may only gain
that with the Sun implementation because Jigsaw will not be part of
the required Java7 implementation)
On Sep 18, 10:55 am, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> I neve
I never said Java should or would stop evolving. I'm explaining why
Java must, of necessity, evolve slower than a brand new language.
With regards to lang interop and closures in JDK 7: here's my thoughts.
Think of JDK 7 as our Snow Leopard. It's not about sexy new features.
It's about fixin
Or if I have an old module containing lots of sources, I might find that
many are incompatible with Java 'n'.
I could then compile the whole module with -source 'n-1'. Great. Now I
need to leverage Java 'n' features elsewhere in the module. Ooops -- I
can't until I clean up all the old sourc
The source statement as proposed for coin did no more or no less than
the -source flag that already exists (OK not quite true, see below).
This is definitely in the spirit of coin, a small change. The only
substantive change, over the current -source flag; would be that
'module' would be a normal
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> The discussion did bring up cases where compilation against different JDK
> library versions was required. This problem is rather annoying in cases.
> For instance, the JDBC Connection API in Java 6 adds a whole lot of methods,
> m
2009/9/18 Alex Buckley
>
> Stuart,
>
> On Sep 17, 11:22 am, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> > This is probably pouring oil on the fire, but it looks like hacking a
> > prototype even lets you circumvent the JCP ;)
> >
> > http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/jsr294-modularity-observer/2009...
>
> Eve
Alex, 'source' simply acknowledges that java (the language) syntax and
java (the runtime library) dependencies are utterly unrelated things.
Why MUST they track each other? In practice that already doesn't
happen: Code compiled on javac6 is routinely run on jvm5, and vice
versa. javac has -source
To Josh, Bob, and all the other 'java is a fossil' arguers:
Please, stop.
Your argument fails almost immediately: Because the JVM has no notion
of a closure, a 'duration' type, and a gazillion other things various
new JVM languages are trying to add (as discussed in posse #278!),
interop between
On Sep 17, 5:38 am, Jess Holle wrote:
> Joe Darcy recently cited discussion threads in which the source
> statement was supposedly found to be problematic.
>
> I perused them -- and didn't see any substantive problems uncovered in
> the course of those discussions.
>
> Personally I think a source
Stuart,
On Sep 17, 11:22 am, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> This is probably pouring oil on the fire, but it looks like hacking a
> prototype even lets you circumvent the JCP ;)
>
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/jsr294-modularity-observer/2009...
Even with a smiley, one should be very carefu
The reality of bringing a new language into an exisiting organization is
that it just isn’t that easy. Managers and the like see it as another thing
they have to maintain. Organizations limit the number of languages in house
for both maintenance and support reasons. It's much easier to get an
org
2009/9/17 Reinier Zwitserloot
>
> Joe specifically complained about a lack of prototypes in various
> places. Here's a verbatim quote from a comment he left on his own blog
> ( http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_final_five ):
>
> > Project Coin explicitly encouraged prototypes as a way
(warning, this is long).
It's easier to invent a new language than improve the old one for the
same reason it's far faster and cheaper to build a brand new road then
to do minor repairs on an existing road that's *in use*. This is just
the nature of software. Once something ships and is u
I second that. Having never enjoyed the Posse as much as when
engineering issues floats up to the top and they speak their mind from
a technical perspective, for that truly represents the community I
consider myself part of which is all about pushing state of the art.
It's not easy to cater to ev
Bob,
I think you are being a bit hard on the Posse and Dick in particular.
They produce a podcast in there own time for little reward (OK the
occasional free Beer form Atlassian), surely they are allowed to
express their views - part of the entertainment is disagreeing with
them!
Just a nit pick
Joe Darcy recently cited discussion threads in which the source
statement was supposedly found to be problematic.
I perused them -- and didn't see any substantive problems uncovered in
the course of those discussions.
Personally I think a source statement would be a good thing. Otherwise
if y
All very good points
On Sep 17, 12:47 pm, Casper Bang wrote:
> I agree with your analysis although I often think of this as a
> question. Why is it that it's ok to invent a totally new language but
> shaping an existing one according to state-of-the art is not? It seems
> like we are forced into
On Sep 16, 6:06 am, Dick Wall wrote:
>
> I don't know if it is something in the water recently - maybe the
> economic downturn - but this constant assumption that the Java Posse
> are bullies, or lapdogs, or tabloid journalists, etc. seems to be
> coming up more and more. It's disappointing (perh
Dick Wall wrote:
[...]
> I don't know if it is something in the water recently - maybe the
> economic downturn - but this constant assumption that the Java Posse
> are bullies, or lapdogs, or tabloid journalists, etc. seems to be
> coming up more and more. It's disappointing (perhaps you guys forg
I agree with your analysis although I often think of this as a
question. Why is it that it's ok to invent a totally new language but
shaping an existing one according to state-of-the art is not? It seems
like we are forced into making the hard choice between something
radically new (Scala, JavaFX)
You can see in this discussion group the tension between: "don't make
changes" (Bob) and "lets keep advancing Java" (Reinier). I am in
Reinier's camp, but think that both points of view can be satisfied
with a source statement. If there is no source statement then the file
compiles as it does now,
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> There were a few proposals that didn't make it that
> nevertheless received some positive feedback and went through a bunch
> of iterations (case in point: Neal's exception handling proposal!),
> that were nevertheless not shortlisted.
Quality over quantity is a fine goal, but I don't think we can
honestly claim coin did a particularly good job on that. As has been
said, over 90 proposals were submitted. The majority of them were
horrid.
On Sep 16, 10:22 pm, markmahieu wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Why are you
> surprised the community isn't putting in as many proposals as you
> wanted? Putting in that much effort writing excruciatingly boring JLS
> spec with virtually no guarantee is of course not going to find many
> takers.
I interpreted
Joe specifically complained about a lack of prototypes in various
places. Here's a verbatim quote from a comment he left on his own blog
( http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_final_five ):
> Project Coin explicitly encouraged prototypes as a way to demonstrate the
> feasibility and uti
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Bob Lee wrote:
> > I don't know where multicatch stands. You'll have to ask Neal and Joe. If
> > it's out, I'm sure there's a good reason.
>
> That's the crux of the situation, isn't it?
>
> Where's that reason? We
On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Bob Lee wrote:
>
> I don't know where multicatch stands. You'll have to ask Neal and Joe. If
> it's out, I'm sure there's a good reason.
>
That's the crux of the situation, isn't it?
Where's that reason? We keep coming back again and again to the exact
same point:
If multi
> There is however, a very big difference between looking at a language
> change from the perspective of a language implementor vs a language
> user. In any case, I look forward to our discussion!
And I look forward to listening!
>
> - Joe (the other Joe)
>
> On Sep 2, 8:44 pm, jddarcy wrote:
I am looking forward to our discussion in person hopefully tomorrow
(Wed) after the languages summit. We'll bring a recorder, of course
so the listeners get the benefit of hearing you directly. We're all
huge fans of yours Joe, but of us 4 - probably Carl is the only one
you could label as a "co
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Casper Bang wrote:
> Well no matter how you cut it, the amount of stuff that has been
> dropped is staggering
>
Well, I find the amount of stuff that's going in to the language in Java 7
to be staggering and even worrying. You could say we're looking at a bigger
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Casper Bang wrote:
>
> > Also, Java 7 isn't the end of the line. Just because a feature
> > doesn't make it into 7 doesn't mean it will never make it in.
> > Neal has also stated here and on other blogs
>
> Well no matter how you cut it, the amount of stuff that h
> Also, Java 7 isn't the end of the line. Just because a feature
> doesn't make it into 7 doesn't mean it will never make it in.
> Neal has also stated here and on other blogs
Well no matter how you cut it, the amount of stuff that has been
dropped is staggering and a prospect of JDK8 in another
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Dick Wall wrote:
> Firstly, perhaps folks out to go back and listen to the first 20
> minutes of episode 277. The emphasis of that discussion was in no way
> bullying anyone from the pulpit, not negative in context, it was more
> of a "hey, isn't this Lombok a cle
I think it might be time for a bit of a reset of this thread, since it
seems to have wandered off into the rough.
Firstly, perhaps folks out to go back and listen to the first 20
minutes of episode 277. The emphasis of that discussion was in no way
bullying anyone from the pulpit, not negative in
Dick,
It really irks me to see you bully Joe from your pulpit like this.
Comparing your job to his is comparing apples to oranges. I'm quite
certain you wouldn't get paid to work on your *closed source* product
if it didn't make a profit. The fact is, Sun doesn't profit from
adding features to th
Joe,
I seemed to have failed in the intention of my post. I was trying to
be constructive and offer a way forward; but all I seem to have done
is upset you, this was not my intention.
I think there is an ever increasing feeling that Java is stagnating,
and as a consequence many people, including
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> Oh, I'm sure it's difficult. None of that changes the fact that we're
> all perfectly capable of judging new language features with:
>
> - a readable description that is NOT up to JLS standard.
>
Sections from the Project Coin pro
Oh, I'm sure it's difficult. None of that changes the fact that we're
all perfectly capable of judging new language features with:
- a readable description that is NOT up to JLS standard.
- a thorough pros and cons list
- plenty of 'real life' examples, preferably not constructed just to
highl
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Vince O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 12:30 am, jddarcy wrote:
> > My message announcing the final five makes clear that this
> > decision was made based on resourcing concerns rather than the merits
> > of the idea itself.
>
> Whilst acknowledging the 'real worl
> Where coin went a bit wrong, I think, is in how you required more work
> from the community than what you require internally. I presume when
> (outside of coin) sun employees decide on java features to add to the
> language, they first do some analysis of which ones are worth it, pick
> one, nai
On Sep 15, 12:30 am, jddarcy wrote:
> My message announcing the final five makes clear that this
> decision was made based on resourcing concerns rather than the merits
> of the idea itself.
Whilst acknowledging the 'real world' constraints of limited
resources; I'm curious about the fact that i
Your complaints about community whining (defined as: People who want
language changes but do not offer to do the work) is entirely
justified.
Where coin went a bit wrong, I think, is in how you required more work
from the community than what you require internally. I presume when
(outside of coin
On Sep 13, 7:16 am, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
[snip]
> Where I take exception, is when Joe Darcy
> complains about lack of community input.
Oh, there is lots of externally community input ("I want feature X
now!", for many values of X); there is much less external community
contribution toward
Anyone can have an opinion. Having an informed opinion takes some
effort. Implementing the conclusions of an informed opinion can take
considerably more effort.
Project Coin != http://bugreport.sun.com/bugreport/
For many years people with ideas for language changes (and other
matters) have be
On Sep 14, 4:30 pm, jddarcy wrote:
> ...
> In contrast to this productive discourse, take the brouhaha over not
> including multi-catch in the Coin final five left in comments on my
> blog. [3] My message announcing the final five makes clear that this
> decision was made based on resourcing con
On Sep 13, 12:27 pm, hlovatt wrote:
> BIAS DISCLAIMER - features mention below are favored by me!
>
> The tension between backward compatibility and introducing new
> features seems be the problem, there are ways out of this problem,
> e.g.:
>
> 1. Introduce a source statement before the package
BIAS DISCLAIMER - features mention below are favored by me!
The tension between backward compatibility and introducing new
features seems be the problem, there are ways out of this problem,
e.g.:
1. Introduce a source statement before the package statement at the
start of the file, e.g. "source
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 of
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 evoluti
Me too, that was a great response.
On 12 Sep., 13:36, Michael Neale wrote:
> /me stands up an applauds.
>
> On Sep 11, 3:12 pm, Dick Wall 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
> > Jo
/me stands up an applauds.
On Sep 11, 3:12 pm, Dick Wall 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 comment
Nuff said
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Dick Wall 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 sh
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
There's _no_ guaranteed right answer for language evolution. The
meritocracy can get it wrong, and one can make mistakes in creating
the selection criterion for what 'merit' implies (such as listening
solely to loudmouths - though in practice some of the folks
complaining have been playing around
Whether or not it'll be legal in java7 isn't too relevant to lombok;
lombok can change whatever it wants, including the grammar. If there's
a compelling lombok transformation that requires the ability to
annotate a stand-alone codeblock, we can change the grammar to make
that legal. Allowing @Sync
Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Hence, I don't really care what the wider java community
> thinks or wants. I care about what the vocal minority wants.
>
>
> NB: Casper Bang makes a pretty good case for #2 as well (meritocracy
> beats democracy in matters of language design). Couldn't agree more,
> m
So, after careful review of all the posts in this thread, I seem to
have misjudged Fabrizio's support for the democratic model. I'll leave
the previous post primarily for my point about how the failure of the
BGGA proposal is not good marketing for community experiments based
around javac-based pr
Fabrizio, I sort of agree with the gist there, but I don't think
that's particularly relevant. For these two reasons:
1. Regardless of how many people _want_ closures, the amount of effort
put in by Gafter in writing the spec and the proposal, and the sheer
amount of community involvement, is sta
On Sep 3, 1:44 pm, jddarcy 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 am pretty sure they weren't referring to you or people like you at
all -
Thats a lot of words.
Don't confuse the millions of users with the vastly smaller subset who
are able to add features to a language (or build their own language)
and the tiny subset of that set that would actually want to, with java
(when so many silly attitudes exist - law of averages and all th
If I have misunderstood something, I am not alone in this, as the
editor publicaly writes "At the time of that poll, the specific
features that will be included in JDK had not been finalized. Now that
the list is out, it's a perfect time get people's reassessed view of
the JDK".
You will kindly c
Well we now know the upper bound of the subset that could possibly
make it in, no? That's what I though anyway. You'd know that better
than me so correct me if I am wrong.
/Casper
On 5 Sep., 03:24, Alex Buckley wrote:
> I have to ask: how is it different
> tohttp://java.net/poll/whats-your-vie
I have to ask: how is it different to
http://java.net/poll/whats-your-view-emerging-jdk-7
?
On Sep 4, 5:20 pm, Casper Bang wrote:
> Java 7, public speak for JDK7 and thus not only the Coin stuff. Things
> are somewhat reversed as we don't have an umbrella JSR (yet?).
>
> /Casper
>
> On 5 Sep.,
Java 7, public speak for JDK7 and thus not only the Coin stuff. Things
are somewhat reversed as we don't have an umbrella JSR (yet?).
/Casper
On 5 Sep., 02:12, Paul King wrote:
> Was the poll trying to determine a response to all jdk7 features -
> there are some significant ones, e.g. JSR-203 -
Was the poll trying to determine a response to all jdk7 features -
there are some significant ones, e.g. JSR-203 - or just the project
coin ones?
Cheers, Paul.
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
>
> Poll is now running on java.net:
> http://www.java.net/poll/what-your-reaction-j
Poll is now running on java.net:
http://www.java.net/poll/what-your-reaction-jdk-7-feature-list
/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 jav
On Sep 3, 10:15 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> That's what makes lombok so different, and that's perhaps why the
> lombok discussion group already has more posts in it inside of a month
> than kijaro's in its 2 years. You can actually use it, right now, on
> your day to day projects, without ha
jddarcy wrote:
> Sun is not preventing anyone from undertaking the work of exploring a
> language change. Rather, especially with OpenJDK, we have greatly
> facilitated such explorations.
>
>
Let me add another consideration. The fact that there are a number of
new languages around, and some
On Sep 3, 6:37 am, "Vince O'Sullivan" wrote:
> Thanks for your response to criticisms of the lack of significant new
> features in Java 7.
I was more so responding to the implication that Sun is not seeking
input from the broader community (Sun is part of the Java community of
course) when Pro
Casper Bang wrote:
> Funny enough, I just submitted such a poll to java.net since there are
> certainly more average developers following it, than there are
> tracking the coin mailing-list. Personally I don't think language
>
I'm not in the coin mailing-list, so I trust your numbers. Still,
l
1) Works really well for a while. Hard to not care though.
2) Doesn't do much more than make you look like a trouble maker.
3) The grass is always greener somewhere else. Believe me, it is because of
the manure.
4) Very commendable but hard to pay the bills. Great if you can make it fit
the needs o
On Sep 3, 5:22 am, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> Thanks Joe. I appreciate this response. Any chance we can get a blog
> on it to spread around?
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 8:44 PM, jddarcy wrote:
I've posted a lightly edited copy of my post at
http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/entry/javaposse_277_ivory_tower
-
Funny enough, I just submitted such a poll to java.net since there are
certainly more average developers following it, than there are
tracking the coin mailing-list. Personally I don't think language
design should be a democratic endeavor exactly for the reasons
outlined by Joe and Alex, things go
Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> I'd also like to state my support for Jess Holle's very astute
> observation that the first serious attempt to build a fully specced,
> fully prototyped proposal (BGGA) got a rather lukewarm response from
> sun. The BGGA proposal didn't just have an excellent spec and
Joe, I think a very (_very_) large problem with The Kitchen Sink
Language, kijaro, and the open sourced JDK is that you fundamentally
can't solve your own problem with it.
There are exceptions, but the vast majority of java programmers I know
of that are interested in developing their own languag
All points well taken -- at least by me.
I know what it's like to work as hard as you can towards something and
be shot down by criticism that you're not doing anything or not even trying.
That said, a few points:
* Not all of us are compiler experts -- and javac is fairly large
and g
As I've communicated to Alex Buckley, I just think the community was
surprised by how few resources Sun would/could put on it. Seems like
this boils down to a conflict of interest between Sun, the JCP and the
people in the trenches. Sun needs to realize how this model appears
from a far and how it
Thanks for your response to criticisms of the lack of significant new
features in Java 7. It is very important to know that there is a
ready line of communication between the people who control a language
and those who use it.
Having said that, could you answer this question...
Which of the new
Thanks Joe. I appreciate this response. Any chance we can get a blog
on it to spread around?
On Sep 2, 2009, at 8:44 PM, jddarcy 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
90 matches
Mail list logo
