It'll look like this, except on Android. There, despite constantly being asked when newer improvements to Java would come, they still had to ask if people wanted them to update to Java 8, and why they'd want that.
What Future Java Might Look Like
11–20 of 105 posts
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#12Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility. This is why Java needs to die. Not because it's particularly horrible, but because we can do better now.
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes I feel that scala or clojure already offer all these advantages (depending on your preference of static vs dynamic typing) and have great java interop.
And Kotlin as well, with java interop considered a top priority.
So long as we're citing favorites, sad SML on the JVM never took off:
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#14Dead, finally? ..Ow, damn, false alarm! Just another vile article :(
You're being downvoted, but really, the only saving grace in Java is the occasionally useful tooling that can't be used in the other two actually good JVM languages: Kotlin and Scala.
And right now the only one I can think of is j2objc. Java should absolutely die.
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#15Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility. This is why Java needs to die. Not because it's particularly horrible, but because we can do better now.
Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility.
Completely agree. Dropping backwards compatibility, if you have serious users, really isn't an option either. Just look at Python 2/3.
You can deprecate stuff and very very very very slowly remove it, but it really is a slow process if you want to keep your existing users happy.
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#16Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility. This is why Java needs to die. Not because it's particularly horrible, but because we can do better now.
By that standard every language needs to die. Or to put it another way, how long should languages be permitted to survive as we figure out better ways of doing things?
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#17Dead, finally? ..Ow, damn, false alarm! Just another vile article :(
You're being downvoted, but really, the only saving grace in Java is the occasionally useful tooling that can't be used in the other two actually good JVM languages: Kotlin and Scala. And right now the only one I can think of is j2objc. Java should absolutely die.
...in the other two actually good JVM languages: Kotlin and Scala
As a Clojure programmer, I take exception to this statement. There's more than just two "actually good" JVM languages.
(I personally don't like the two you mentioned that much, but its because I have a distaste for OO these days, not because they're bad languages)
The JVM is a solid piece of tech and the Java ecosystem is strong, but Java the language is not something I want to have to use again, if I can help it. There are many better languages out there nowadays!
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#18Dead, finally? ..Ow, damn, false alarm! Just another vile article :(
You're being downvoted, but really, the only saving grace in Java is the occasionally useful tooling that can't be used in the other two actually good JVM languages: Kotlin and Scala. And right now the only one I can think of is j2objc. Java should absolutely die.
Isn't this upvote-downvote thing somehow linked to confirmation bias? I'm getting downvoted for having issued an opinion which opposes that of the others? This sounds so horribly wrong to me...
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes I feel that scala or clojure already offer all these advantages (depending on your preference of static vs dynamic typing) and have great java interop.
And Kotlin as well, with java interop considered a top priority.
Is anyone actually using Kotlin outside jetbrains? Seems like it doesn't have much mindshare or any high profile projects using it.
Re: What Future Java Might Look Like
#20Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility. This is why Java needs to die. Not because it's particularly horrible, but because we can do better now.
By that standard every language needs to die. Or to put it another way, how long should languages be permitted to survive as we figure out better ways of doing things?
Very interesting question. The benefits of a new language has to be weighed against the learning that has to be done to use it and the load of maintaining things in different languages. It's not every 3 years or anything like that, but Java is 20 years old now, and it shows.