Unless you're forced at gunpoint, how can there be too many releases?

Rust releases every 6 weeks, since 2016...

If you don't want to update, just don't?

If you feel (!) pressured, you should work on that.

ptx 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With each new Java release the previous one becomes instantly unsupported (meaning that it receives no security updates), unless you pay Oracle (or another vendor). So you are forced to update if you want security updates (or run only LTS releases, or pay a vendor).

	▲	pgwhalen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So if the matters to you, run the LTS release, right? I'm not sure I follow the concern.

▲

robertjpayne 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rust releases are just compiler toolchain, maybe some new syntax features. Java includes the JVM which is subject to way more security issues and needs much more frequent updating.

▲

wtetzner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But can't you continue to run older bytecode versions on newer JVMs? I think you can also specify the source version separately.

	▲	samus 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, you can. There is no need to recompile, unless you're interested in new language features. Maintaining binary compatibility is a principal goal of the platform which continues to constrain design decisions for all future changes.

▲

OtomotO 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Java includes the JVM which is subject to way more security issues and needs much more frequent updating.

Then releasing more often is better, because the security fixes get out of the door faster?!

If previously a Java Update took 3 years, then the corresponding JVM version would be 3 years old as well.

If there were patch release in between, I see no difference to now.

	▲	samus 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Patches are released continuously. The upstream versions get them immediately and they are then backported to LTS versions. Whether the patches actually become available simultaneously I cannot say without.