Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Java 27: What's New?

loicmathieu.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#41

Post by the-smug-one »

bmacho wrote: post #14
this_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too many releases now. At some points, the numbers just become noise. I think most people will stick to the LTS releases, but even those come out every two years.

The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu. The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

I don't see the point, just increment it every release. Don't see what errors are prone either

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#42

Post by the-smug-one »

this_user wrote: post #8
doikor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They moved to a schedule instead of waiting for features to be finished. Basically we get a new major version release on a schedule. Everything that is finished gets packaged in and everything else pushed to the next release. The issue before was that they marked beforehand "version X will contain feature Y" and then feature Y got delayed by 3 years which means everything else in version X also got delayed by 3 years…

It's too many releases now. At some points, the numbers just become noise. I think most people will stick to the LTS releases, but even those come out every two years.

Why? Just upgrade. Make it so that your org can deal with it.

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#44

Post by chasd00 »

stanac wrote: post #36
UltraSane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say?

I think they are saying Java is dead?! Not sure how else to interpret the comment. If that's the case I have to disagree. There are probably billions of lines of Java in enterprise, it will never die.

my standard Java analogy is it's like a garbage truck. Java is out there every day doing a job that's absolutely critical but rarely, if ever, in the lime light.

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#45

Post by samus »

throwaw12 wrote: post #35

Give us some break we just recently migrated to Java 11 from Java 8

Just one more push to Java 17; from there on it should be smooth sailing. I hope you have built up a comprehensive regression test suite as part of the migration.

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#46

Post by bmacho »

samus wrote: post #32
bmacho wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu. The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

I believe that's by design: applications are encouraged to upgrade often. That's usually a smooth process for standard-conforming applications. Applications that need to move slower can stick to LTS versions. LTS hopping has become a little bit more viable since the interval has been shortened to two years, i.e., four major versions.

> I believe that's by design: applications are encouraged to upgrade often.

I'm not sure what's your thought process here. I'm not saying they should have a release every 2 years instead of every half a year, but that their numbering scheme is bad.

It makes upgrading harder. If they'd just put the date in the version field, people would know how old the software is (this applies to every software btw not just Java and Ubuntu).

Their current versioning system doesn't help anyone in any imaginale circumstance.

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#47

Post by re-thc »

chasd00 wrote: post #44
stanac wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are saying Java is dead?! Not sure how else to interpret the comment. If that's the case I have to disagree. There are probably billions of lines of Java in enterprise, it will never die.

my standard Java analogy is it's like a garbage truck. Java is out there every day doing a job that's absolutely critical but rarely, if ever, in the lime light.

> but rarely, if ever, in the lime light

I disagree. The open web likes bashing it as a scrape goat. Reddit, X/Twitter, etc. It's died down some lately but there were at least a couple a years when this was very out there.

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#48

Post by re-thc »

bmacho wrote: post #14
this_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too many releases now. At some points, the numbers just become noise. I think most people will stick to the LTS releases, but even those come out every two years.

The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu. The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

> The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

> This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on.

And how does that bear any information any differently?

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#49

Post by doodpants »

bmacho wrote: post #14
this_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too many releases now. At some points, the numbers just become noise. I think most people will stick to the LTS releases, but even those come out every two years.

The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu. The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

> Year.version

I think you mean "(Year % 100).version". Or is it "(Year - 2000).version"? Pardon me for being overly pedantic, but ever since Y2K it really bugs me when someone refers to a 2-digit number as "the year".

Re: Java 27: What's New?

#50

Post by bmacho »

re-thc wrote: post #48
bmacho wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu. The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.

> The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone. > This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. And how does that bear any information any differently?

When I encounter a version number I mostly want to know either:

  - what are the major characteristics of the program
  - how old is the program
Traditional software versioning helps in the first case: they bump version after a big event (new feature, rewrite, etc). Date based versioning helps in the second case. (I prefer date based versioning over traditional or semver.) Their numbering system doesn't help anyone in any case. It's just... there. A noise.

E.g. just this article title on HN: "Java 27: What's New?" doesn't tell you whether Java 27 is old or new. "Java 26.1: What's New?" would.

Post reply on HN