| I don't wanna badmouth Java people, but how they push the idea that this thing is some sort of genuine breakthrough that took multiple PhDs years of cutting-edge research to implement, when in fact they basically copied what .NET did from basically year 1, is not a good look. Again, not trying to turn this into a .NET vs Java thing, I'd have been much happier if they reached some new and interesting conclusions. |
| |
| ▲ | gf000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > genuine breakthrough Well, it is - because they had to make it with almost perfect backwards compatibility for one of the most popular languages with trillions of lines of code produced over decades. Sure, adding it to a new language is not hard. Adding it to Java which has primitives, generics and boxing, finding ways that seamlessly cover the differences between objects and primitives, while trying to plan for the future is hard. As a general note, if you come to the conclusion that one of the best designer teams on Earth "basically copied what .NET did from year 1 is not a good look", then maybe your mental model needs adjusting on how these stuff works? Java has a public mailing list, you can browse through the related discussions. Implementation is the least of these things. But I can assure you they most definitely know what they are doing. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Except of course they are breaking backwards compatibility, in relatively subtle ways, for anything that uses the standard library wrapper types. So every use of Integer, Boolean , etc is an opportunity for either a compilation error or a runtime bug. | |
| ▲ | sysguest 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | idk maybe java should adopt something similar to rust's "edition"? | | |
| ▲ | gf000 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rust editions are a source code-level feature. So given you have the source code of newer and older rust code, you can compile them together. That's materially distinct from Java's model of basically dynamic loading already compiled class files. Though class files do have "editions", and there are extra code to deal with different versions. But still, it should be possible to e.g. send a new value class to an old library's class that has never heard of them, and that should just work. | | |
| ▲ | simonask 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The important thing is that Rust editions affect semantics and name resolution. In such an analogy, JVM bytecode is the equivalent of Rust code - various semantics are baked in, but stuff like name resolution isn't (at least not completely). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >I don't wanna badmouth Java people, but how they push the idea that this thing is some sort of genuine breakthrough that took multiple PhDs years of cutting-edge research to implement, when in fact they basically copied what .NET did from basically year 1, is not a good look. Oversimplifying a big semantic and backend change to a huge codebase on which some of the most crucial customer and government and business systems depend on, and which has to be made as seamless, correct, and performant as possible, to "they just copied .NET", just because .NET has the same functionality, is an even worse look. It's a "HN "Dropbox is just rsync + some scripts"-style bad look. | |
| ▲ | misja111 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is exactly what made it so difficult. It is much easier to have a feature like this from year 1 than to add it to a language that has grown and evolved for 18 years already. | | |
| ▲ | rf15 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with this sentiment. The work they put in deserves a lot of respect, and took a lot of effort, no doubt. It's just the framing they push to the public that could use some work. |
| |
| ▲ | DarkNova6 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article is shit, the actual concept and roadmap goes well beyond the capabilities of C# or the CLR. |
|
