Javalobby - Comments for "Java 7 Predictions"

very nice article.tüp

kardelen133 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:01:38 -0400

very nice article.

tüp bebek

Alex, This is really cool

prasanth_jalasutram — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:48:03 -0500

Alex,

This is really cool job and great to have a passionate developer in java community.

Thanks

Prashant Jalasutram

http://prashantjalasutram.blogspot.com/

If the introduction of

olliplough — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:55:40 -0500

If the introduction of closures is postponed I will definitely run mad at Sun. People that come from high-level languages and have to code in Java where there are no closures are pissed enough already. Sorry for the language. But this had to be said :-))).

Cheers, Olli

JSR 291 (aka OSGi R4) was

puredanger — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:14:12 -0500

JSR 291 (aka OSGi R4) was approved in Aug 2007. It's not contingent on Java 7 and will work on existing JDK platforms back to, I think, Java SE 1.2. The question is really whether JSR 294 and 277 will be open enough that OSGi-based systems (which are now quite numerous) will be compatible with them. If they are not, then I fear there will be a schism in users of the two module systems with people choosing one or the other, which would be a shame.

no JSR-291?

ra49700 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:29:34 -0500

no JSR-291?

Good thing I've all those

jwenting — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:33:42 -0500

Good thing I've all those 1.5 releases stacked away because if this all goes through (or even a small part goes through) that's where the train stops, the ship docks for the last time, the aircraft gets grounded.

The wholesale destruction of the language and platform to please its enemies (and Sun's and IBM's marketing folks) that started with 1.6 would be completed in one fell swoop.

@ng100699 (presumably Neal

puredanger — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:48:57 -0500

@ng100699 (presumably Neal Gafter) - thanks for the update. I'll assume by the lack of any other corrections, that the rest is all correct. :)

@mm49838 - yep, I think ARM will get a little more fleshed out, and who knows, it may have legs regardless of which way closures go. There have been some ideas sketched out for reification and even for reconciling the collections library to work with both but to my eye it's not pretty. I'm guessing it's too much, especially on top of closures and everything else.

@aalmiray - yep, I've been doing some Groovy recently and I'm finding it very useful in thinking about what Java would be like with some of these features.

Great compilation of

aalmiray — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:37:29 -0500

Great compilation of proposed features. I hope that chained invocation doesn't make it, is too magical for something that should be designed from the start, not as a afterthought (the client API that is) IMHO. It is worth nothing that some of those proposals are already available in Groovy, if someone cares to "feel" it today and probably send some feedback to the appropriate JSRs :-)

It certainly feels like ARM

mm49838 — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:56:32 -0500

It certainly feels like ARM blocks need a number of details thrashed out before they can be considered a real contender. See here for some thoughts on the matter (and an attempt at a prototype).

As for reification - whatever happened to the EGO approach here ? Didn't one of the authors join Sun's compiler team recently?

I believe BidDecimal

ng100699 — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:53:50 -0500

I believe BidDecimal operator support won't happen because we can't change the meaning of the "==" operator without breaking backward compatibility.